- The climate is changing, and people are the cause- Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C- We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening- Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warming
1) CO2 concentration drives global temperature, much as a home thermostat drives house temperature
2) For every CO2 concentration there is a corresponding equilibrium global temperature, analogous to the home thermostat setting
Simplifications in the analogy err on the optimistic/conservative side:3) Earth's temperature takes time to respond to CO2 concentration changes, like the time it takes house temperature to respond to a thermostat setting change
- CO2 emissions stop now, and future atmospheric concentration is fixed at its current level
- translation from CO2 concentration to equilibrium temperature follows Thomas Anderl's logarthmic fit to 400 My paleoclimate models, which is more conservative than Ye Tao's linear fit to 800,000 year ice core data- future global temperatures approach the equilibrium "thermostat setting" according to an exponential decay with a 50 year time constant (parameterized time constant open to suggestion)- warming from non-CO2 GHG's is ignored
- global temperature is assumed spatially uniform; e.g., the impact of Arctic amplification is ignored
- tipping points and other nonlinearities and hystereses are not considered
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040- 2.0°C in 2077- 2.2°C in 2100
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
This case has been made from the very start, by Hansen and others, and in my 1990 critique of IPCCC’s low projections due to using much too low values for the sensitivities of temperature to CO2 and of sea level to CO2.
IPCCC’s exclusive focus only on short term model predictions, and ignoring the long term climate impacts known from the fossil record, were the results of systematic pressure by the fossil fuel industry on the policies of all states that produce, or consume, fossil fuels. IPCCC was asked to answer the wrong question.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
On Mar 16, 2023, at 1:03 PM, lee mcnair <dragon...@gmail.com> wrote:
This might be a silly suggestion but what might happen if you posted a poster of an old fashioned mercury thermometer rising higher and higher over time maybe superimposed over a picture of the globe on Twitter and other social media with a simple message. Maybe something like global scorching is already out of control. Tell your lawmakers to fund cooling technology research NOW before it's too late!I'm not a scientist, just an ordinary person but I would understand that. And I think you need ordinary earthlings to start talking about this so it couldn't be a one-time deal. You'd have to follow up at least weekly with more info and maybe direction on who to write/phone/advocate with in different geographic locations.Lee McNair (she, her)
"May you be filled with loving kindness.
May you be safe from inner and outer harm.
May you be healthy in body and mind.
May you find Peace and be truly happy. "
Find out whose land you’re on at https://native-land.ca/
I live on the lands of the
Nacotchtank (Anacostan) or the lands of the
Piscataway.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 11:16 AM Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello PRAG and all,Thank you for entertaining my question two PRAG calls ago regarding beliefs about future temperature trajectories. I believe most people, including many climate scientists, aren't open to unconventional solutions like PRAG's in part because they don't truly recognize the severity of the crisis.It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that:- The climate is changing, and people are the cause- Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C- We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening- Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warmingThis is a good start. Unfortunately, a widespread belief in the flawed carbon budget concept leads many people and organizations (including IPCC, CarbonBrief, Global Carbon Project, Mercator Research on Global Commons and Climate Change, Climate Clock, University of Edinburgh, and many more) to think further GHG emissions are needed to increase warming from the current ~1.1°C level to the severe 1.5°C and catastrophic 2.0°C levels and beyond. In reality, emissions have already "pushed Earth's thermostat up" well above 2.0°C, and we are just waiting for Earth's temperature to catch up.Before geoengineering can take hold, I believe we need to get this message across to the widest possible audience, both technical and technical. For your consideration, I propose a simplified but adequately accurate thermostat analogy, in which:1) CO2 concentration drives global temperature, much as a home thermostat drives house temperature2) For every CO2 concentration there is a corresponding equilibrium global temperature, analogous to the home thermostat settingSimplifications in the analogy err on the optimistic/conservative side:3) Earth's temperature takes time to respond to CO2 concentration changes, like the time it takes house temperature to respond to a thermostat setting change- CO2 emissions stop now, and future atmospheric concentration is fixed at its current level- translation from CO2 concentration to equilibrium temperature follows Thomas Anderl's logarthmic fit to 400 My paleoclimate models, which is more conservative than Ye Tao's linear fit to 800,000 year ice core data- future global temperatures approach the equilibrium "thermostat setting" according to an exponential decay with a 50 year time constant (parameterized time constant open to suggestion)- warming from non-CO2 GHG's is ignored- global temperature is assumed spatially uniform; e.g., the impact of Arctic amplification is ignored- tipping points and other nonlinearities and hystereses are not consideredThe result is a simple, wildly optimistic, bounding, defensible "best case" "Net Zero 2023" trajectory:
In this scenario,- the "global thermostat" setting reached- 2.0°C in 2011- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015- 2.5°C in March 2023- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach- 1.5°C in 2040- 2.0°C in 2077- 2.2°C in 2100Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points- etc.The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!Thanks, and cheers,Ben Ballard------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
----
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/CAOJO1XatWx1ooegKmGbAwYb8t9v7FHx1-S_BtOpqu9N2cjsLNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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/CAKzN3YzGBKGKaPFda%2BTamB2zSv-BsLujfgPxa5XUnytZrTXgEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I have to add this into this discussion because of the outdated
nature of a carbon budget. This concept has been used for a couple
of decades now and is a mainstay in climate culture and the time
has come to stop talking about it and adjust to the new reality
that our current temperature is too warm because tipping systems
have now activated.
The carbon budget is fundamentally flawed before considering
climate sensitivity or a forcing/temperature response time. This
failure of the concept has happened within about the last 5 years
because climate tipping systems have recently activated. Before
about 5 years ago --before we realized that tipping systems were
active, the carbon budget was still valid because we could endure
warming to 1.5 C or even 2 C or more, and not suffer irreversible
tipping collapses. Everything has changed now with the realization
that Earth systems are collapsing prematurely, when they were not
supposed to collapse until late in the 21st century with business
as usual warming (Lenton
2019). Most of these systems in collapse are either
directly, or directly related to irreversible tipping responses
that once activated, do not self-restore unless the warming that
caused them to activate is removed. Therefor a carbon budget with
a warming target of 1.5 C is invalid now because with 1.5 C
warming, tipping collapses become irreversible. Irreversible
tipping means reversal of sequestration services with quantities
of natural feedback emissions that dwarf humankind's emissions.
The reason for the carbon budget is that it is based on IPCC
scenarios, where the 1,202 scenarios included in AR6 have at best
a 1.5 C target and this target does not consider irreversible
tipping systems responses. No IPCC scenarios have a restoration
warming target or any target less than 1.5 C. This is a classic
scenario bias and supersedes any climate sensitivity issues as it
matters not what climate sensitivity is when Earth systems are
already in tipping collapse because once collapse is activated it
does not self-restore unless the current warming that caused the
collapses to activate is removed. In other words, irreversible
collapse is inevitable unless we remove the warming perturbation
to the system that caused these collapses to begin before the
point of no return, where Hansen 2008 defines the "point of no
return" as that point where irreversibleness is locked in.
This is the fundamental rationale for climate restoration upon
which Hansen 2008
bases their 350 ppm limit, and where Hansen 2017
further defines 350 ppm CO2 as (about) 1 C warming in 2100.
Climate sensitivity is still a good piece of science because of
shock and awe but in reality, today's temperature of 1.2 C warming
above normal --with no further warming-- allows tipping to become
irreversible with untenable futures meaning that a carbon budget
is no longer meaningful. We passed that point of no return a while
back.
Steep trails,
B
(From my archives)
Below
is a description of the scenarios evaluated by the 2021/22
IPCC report AR6.
IPCC Scenarios, 1,202 scenarios of 1.5 C or greater at 2100… Scenarios are important and unless all scenarios include critical pathways, the scenarios evaluated are biased. IPCC has numerous critical scenario biases because none of the scenarios evaluated in the IPCC AR6 report has a restoration target to stabilize tipping, or a temperature below the maximum range of the natural variation of our old climate.
IPCC Scenarios in AR6– Shared Socio-economic Pathways 1,202 modeling scenarios… Shared Socio-economic Pathway scenarios (SSP 1-1.9 to SSP5-8) replaced the old Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (the RCP scenarios). The new scenarios are similar to the old, but include modeling advancements and model variable advancements since the last IPCC report in 2013. There are five new scenario storylines, eight categories and 1,202 separate modeling scenarios that all fall within the five storylines and eight categories. Storylines and categories include things like like high and low emissions futures, high and low population growth, high and low ag and forestry adoption of emissions reductions strategies, etc. The important takeaway from the science IPCC summarizes every seven years is that it is all based on the given scenarios (assumed futures) with a range of possible temperature outcomes of 1.5 degrees C warming to over 5 degrees C warming above normal at 2100. There are no scenarios with a future outcome of less than 1.5 C. (This is a classic scenario bias.)
Table
3.1 Classification of emissions scenarios into warming
levels using MAGICC
C1: Below 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, <1.5°C peak warming with ≥33% chance and < 1.5°C end of century warming with >50% chance, SSP1-1.9, # scenarios, 97
C2: Below 1.5°C with high overshoot, <1.5°C peak warming with <33% chance and < 1.5°C end of century warming with >50% chance, # scenarios,133
C3:
Likely below 2°C, <2°C peak warming with >67%
chance SSP2-2.6, # Scenarios 311
C4: Below 2°C, <2°C peak warming with >50% chance, #
Scenarios 159
C5: Below 2.5°C, <2.5°C peak warming with >50% chance, # Scenarios 212
IPCC
AR6 WGIII, Chapter 3, Mitigation Pathways Compatible
with Long Term Goals, April 2022, page 3-17.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter_03.pdf
--
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/CAOJO1XbNP4d-tuThzG%3DPvzxQDjzCAXR%3DZNY_h_zXT6k%2BirgkaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Hello PRAG and all,
Thank you for entertaining my question two PRAG calls ago regarding beliefs about future temperature trajectories. I believe most people, including many climate scientists, aren't open to unconventional solutions like PRAG's in part because they don't truly recognize the severity of the crisis.
It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that:
- The climate is changing, and people are the cause
- Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C
- We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening
- Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warming
This is a good start. Unfortunately, a widespread belief in the flawed carbon budget concept leads many people and organizations (including IPCC, CarbonBrief, Global Carbon Project, Mercator Research on Global Commons and Climate Change, Climate Clock, University of Edinburgh, and many more) to think further GHG emissions are needed to increase warming from the current ~1.1°C level to the severe 1.5°C and catastrophic 2.0°C levels and beyond. In reality, emissions have already "pushed Earth's thermostat up" well above 2.0°C, and we are just waiting for Earth's temperature to catch up.
Before geoengineering can take hold, I believe we need to get this message across to the widest possible audience, both technical and technical. For your consideration, I propose a simplified but adequately accurate thermostat analogy, in which:
1) CO2 concentration drives global temperature, much as a home thermostat drives house temperature
2) For every CO2 concentration there is a corresponding equilibrium global temperature, analogous to the home thermostat setting
3) Earth's temperature takes time to respond to CO2 concentration changes, like the time it takes house temperature to respond to a thermostat setting change
Simplifications in the analogy err on the optimistic/conservative side:
- CO2 emissions stop now, and future atmospheric concentration is fixed at its current level
- translation from CO2 concentration to equilibrium temperature follows Thomas Anderl's logarthmic fit to 400 My paleoclimate models, which is more conservative than Ye Tao's linear fit to 800,000 year ice core data
- future global temperatures approach the equilibrium "thermostat setting" according to an exponential decay with a 50 year time constant (parameterized time constant open to suggestion)
- warming from non-CO2 GHG's is ignored
- global temperature is assumed spatially uniform; e.g., the impact of Arctic amplification is ignored
- tipping points and other nonlinearities and hystereses are not considered
The result is a simple, wildly optimistic, bounding, defensible "best case" "Net Zero 2023" trajectory:
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
IPCC projections are way too short in time, and any short term projection that fails to integrate over the temperature physical response time lag caused by ocean mixing (1500 years), polar ice cap melting, etc., automatically underestimates the real long term response.
IPCC was given a political mission, make projections what will happen for a decade or two while governments are in power, not a scientific mission to determine what the actual impacts would be to the planet and humanity afterwards (warming in the pipeline).
That flawed time scale was deliberately built by governments into IPCC’s mandate at the start, IPCC was intentionally designed to underestimate the problem, and any potential liabilities.
That’s why IPCC is at best giving the right answer to the wrong question.
--
This is an excellent discussion. Ben’s analogy with a home thermostat is correct. To support this, I would offer a clarification to Bruce’s view that “irreversible collapse is inevitable unless we remove the warming perturbation.” Removing the perturbation cannot simply address the warming factors alone. On the thermostat analogy, you can cool down a house by opening the doors and windows while leaving the heating on. It is not possible to remove warming forcings fast enough for a climate relevant timescale, so we have to ‘open the windows’ by bringing in cooling forcing to equal and oppose the warming forcing.
The carbon budget concept only sees the warming side of the equation, ignoring the much easier, faster, safer, cheaper and more effective strategy of balancing warming with cooling. That need for a change of thinking away from the flawed carbon budget model is at the basis of my recently circulated attached diagram.
Ben says “It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that: - The climate is changing, and people are the cause; - Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C; - We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening; - Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warming.” These four critical summary points were elaborated from the Buddhist analogy I presented in an earlier discussion, with the four truths of suffering and its cause, end and solution. The problem is that most people still don’t see the severity of the climate crisis. Complacent refusal to see the catastrophic trajectory is abetted by the false IPCC concept of a remaining carbon budget.
Busting of the carbon budget should be accepted as the context of climate policy. The carbon budget should be revised to the goal of long term conversion of CO2 into useful products, while the main work of addressing warming is done by albedo enhancement. Cutting emissions is marginal to the temperature trajectory.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/332bd230-26bc-a29f-747e-4d0875c82098%40earthlink.net.
Ben
Yes, the carbon budget concept makes no sense. But the current scientific consensus wrongly holds that a Zero Emission Commitment could be sufficient to fix the climate. Direct climate cooling through albedo enhancement to brighten the planet should be the subject of a peer reviewed journal article.
Robert
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ben Ballard
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2023 3:50 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
--
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/02a301d9585d%24abf8ea80%2403eabf80%24%40rtulip.net.
I agree. It seems that a consensus
is emerging among several of us contributing to the
PRAG/HPAC/NOAC groups. Perhaps the time has come for us to draw
these ideas together in a formal manner and submit it to one of
the leading peer reviewed journals for publication.
This would have three major benefits. First it would oblige us to present our understanding of the science and policy in a more considered and thorough form, properly argued and comprehensively referenced. Second, it would subject our thinking to peer review. This is likely to lead to it being improved. Third, in the appropriate journal, it would likely get more coverage and be available for others to cite, something that would be less likely from a blog or post in the grey literature environment.
Our principal challenge is not simply to get the message out there, but to do so in a ways that maximises its reach.
Who would like to offer themselves as a co-author on such a project?
Regards
Robert
Ben,
This message is to encourage you (maybe with others?) to produce a short, readable document using what you have already written about the Thermostat analogy. It needs to be somewhere accessible, not just in an email message that will soon be “lost”.
What are your thoughts on this? Who else would or could assist with this?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ben Ballard
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:10 PM
To: Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
You don't often get email from benwb...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XatWx1ooegKmGbAwYb8t9v7FHx1-S_BtOpqu9N2cjsLNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/CAOJO1XZA6R5kuZkYDDA1Af%2B11kEBVdqOwopLmyRoiSg8X7FPVw%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi Ben
You ask “if we could suddenly and magically reduce GHG concentrations as quickly as we increased them in the first place, would the Earth still take longer to cool than it took to warm?”
The big grey slug of historical CO2 forcing shown in the attached diagram will take a long time to remove. I think it will eventually be possible to remove GHGs even faster than they were added. But it will take decades to scale up to such a new global economy. In the meantime, albedo is the only relevant cooling factor.
Your question about how long cooling would take refers to the period after all anthropogenic CO2 has been removed. That is not a possible scenario given that accelerating feedbacks are swamping all carbon based climate responses.
The time needed to scale up CDR is time that we do not have, given tipping points, unless we enhance albedo in the interim. Historical CO2 causes two watts/m2 of warming. We could quickly balance the warming by ramping up to that scale of cooling, decades or even centuries before all that committed CO2 warming can be removed.
(adding HPAC to distribution)
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAOJO1XYbMbfFiRkBVJMSasV%3DVfSUYgUKYmck%3DMr%2BS91KAY9YLA%40mail.gmail.com.
Count me in.
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d015b706-0330-10de-d631-981e95db19dc%40gmail.com.
Ben,
This message is to encourage you (maybe with others?) to produce a short, readable document using what you have already written about the Thermostat analogy. It needs to be somewhere accessible, not just in an email message that will soon be “lost”.
What are your thoughts on this? Who else would or could assist with this?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ben Ballard
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:10 PM
To: Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>;
'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>;
Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
You don't often get email from benwb...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important |
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
Hi Stephen and all,
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XatWx1ooegKmGbAwYb8t9v7FHx1-S_BtOpqu9N2cjsLNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/CAOJO1XZA6R5kuZkYDDA1Af%2B11kEBVdqOwopLmyRoiSg8X7FPVw%40mail.gmail.com.
Paul
Don't get hung up about whether you
can feel 1.2C. These numbers are global average surface
temperatures and include the oceans where the temperature
increase is very little and the polar regions where it is a
lot. The average covers a range from about 1C to 10C or more.
In addition, the temperature change is not even across the day,
with more warming at night and less during the day. The average
also disguises wider seasonal and extreme weather event swings.
On most land areas where people live, the actual average surface temperature increase is likely to be considerably more than 2C even with a global average of 1.2C.
Regards
Robert
Robert and Ben and Tao and Stephen (and all),
I agree and disagree about the needed writings.
The approach should be equally academic (with peer review) and “popular” (discussion items with journalists and talking points and school lesson plans for different grade levels). Either could be first, and simultaneous is also viable, but no delays because of peer review requirements.
I would like to be included in this writing effort.
Also, could someone make an animation video (or a recorded short presentation).
The point is: NOW is when we need to get the thermostat analogy presented.
Additional content: Can you feel 1.2 deg C (2 deg F).
Do this home or office experiment, for people in places with thermostat controlled heating and air conditioning. Presented here for USA places with F. I do not know the thermostat sensitivity with degrees C. (Is it a whole degree or half a degree C?)
1. Determine your current (best liked) temperature. What is normal for you.
2. Turn it up 2 deg F.
3. Allow the system to catch up for half a day or longer.
4. Record for yourself and for others in the space if the difference is noticeable.
5. If not, maybe turn it another 2 deg F higher. It will be noticed.
6. Return to the normal temperature, and wait a day or two.
7. Turn the thermostat 2 degrees F COLDER.
8. Again, note the reactions.
9. You read this far. Will you try it? If yes, will you please report your results? Is this meaningful?
10. If the response is as I expect, then we could utilize this to become a learning experience. Imagine if each cooperating family or business or school classroom or school building could conduct a “learning experience” to drive home TWO messages: A. even 2 degrees F (1.2 deg C) is important and felt. And B. the thermostat is NOT the same as the temperature because there is some time lag to adjust the system. (Imagine change of 1 deg F higher per day starting Monday morning, would you be dreading the 5 degree higher temperature that you know is coming on Friday?
This is education. It is not academic nor peer reviewed.
Ask Congress to do this experience!!! If they do it, tally the reactions of each rep or senator according to political party!!!
11. I am not subscribed to noac nor to geoengineering nor to healthy climate alliance. Please forward this message if appropriate. I receive the response messages by either Biochar or CDR or Planetary Restoration(?) or Healthy Planet Action Coalition discussion groups.
Looking forward to whatever discussion is coming. I am NOT needing nor seeking to be in charge of anything? Is someone interested?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 4:08 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
Robert,
The point IS that people can feel and relate to what is being constantly talked about, which is the current average increase in temperature.
It is not about me being hung up on that temperature rise. It is about getting the general population to give due consideration to something important, for them to (in a good way) get hung up on the climate change implications for their future lives.
I can accept that maybe the thermostat experience might not be a good approach. But on the other hand, it might be a very effective way to send the message about global warming and the heating that is in the pipeline already. What do other say?
Robert and Ben and Tao and Stephen (and all),
I agree and disagree about the needed writings.
The approach should be equally academic (with peer review) and “popular” (discussion items with journalists and talking points and school lesson plans for different grade levels). Either could be first, and simultaneous is also viable, but no delays because of peer review requirements.
I would like to be included in this writing effort.
Also, could someone make an animation video (or a recorded short presentation).
The point is: NOW is when we need to get the thermostat analogy presented.
Additional content: Can you feel 1.2 deg C (2 deg F).
Do this home or office experiment, for people in places with thermostat controlled heating and air conditioning. Presented here for USA places with F. I do not know the thermostat sensitivity with degrees C. (Is it a whole degree or half a degree C?)
1. Determine your current (best liked) temperature. What is normal for you.
2. Turn it up 2 deg F.
3. Allow the system to catch up for half a day or longer.
4. Record for yourself and for others in the space if the difference is noticeable.
5. If not, maybe turn it another 2 deg F higher. It will be noticed.
6. Return to the normal temperature, and wait a day or two.
7. Turn the thermostat 2 degrees F COLDER.
8. Again, note the reactions.
9. You read this far. Will you try it? If yes, will you please report your results? Is this meaningful?
10. If the response is as I expect, then we could utilize this to become a learning experience. Imagine if each cooperating family or business or school classroom or school building could conduct a “learning experience” to drive home TWO messages: A. even 2 degrees F (1.2 deg C) is important and felt. And B. the thermostat is NOT the same as the temperature because there is some time lag to adjust the system. (Imagine change of 1 deg F higher per day starting Monday morning, would you be dreading the 5 degree higher temperature that you know is coming on Friday?
This is education. It is not academic nor peer reviewed.
Ask Congress to do this experience!!! If they do it, tally the reactions of each rep or senator according to political party!!!
11. I am not subscribed to noac nor to geoengineering nor to healthy climate alliance. Please forward this message if appropriate. I receive the response messages by either Biochar or CDR or Planetary Restoration(?) or Healthy Planet Action Coalition discussion groups.
Looking forward to whatever discussion is coming. I am NOT needing nor seeking to be in charge of anything? Is someone interested?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 4:08 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings
<noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
On Mar 16, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello PRAG and all,Thank you for entertaining my question two PRAG calls ago regarding beliefs about future temperature trajectories. I believe most people, including many climate scientists, aren't open to unconventional solutions like PRAG's in part because they don't truly recognize the severity of the crisis.It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that:- The climate is changing, and people are the cause- Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C- We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening- Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warmingThis is a good start. Unfortunately, a widespread belief in the flawed carbon budget concept leads many people and organizations (including IPCC, CarbonBrief, Global Carbon Project, Mercator Research on Global Commons and Climate Change, Climate Clock, University of Edinburgh, and many more) to think further GHG emissions are needed to increase warming from the current ~1.1°C level to the severe 1.5°C and catastrophic 2.0°C levels and beyond. In reality, emissions have already "pushed Earth's thermostat up" well above 2.0°C, and we are just waiting for Earth's temperature to catch up.Before geoengineering can take hold, I believe we need to get this message across to the widest possible audience, both technical and technical. For your consideration, I propose a simplified but adequately accurate thermostat analogy, in which:1) CO2 concentration drives global temperature, much as a home thermostat drives house temperature2) For every CO2 concentration there is a corresponding equilibrium global temperature, analogous to the home thermostat settingSimplifications in the analogy err on the optimistic/conservative side:3) Earth's temperature takes time to respond to CO2 concentration changes, like the time it takes house temperature to respond to a thermostat setting change- CO2 emissions stop now, and future atmospheric concentration is fixed at its current level- translation from CO2 concentration to equilibrium temperature follows Thomas Anderl's logarthmic fit to 400 My paleoclimate models, which is more conservative than Ye Tao's linear fit to 800,000 year ice core data- future global temperatures approach the equilibrium "thermostat setting" according to an exponential decay with a 50 year time constant (parameterized time constant open to suggestion)- warming from non-CO2 GHG's is ignored- global temperature is assumed spatially uniform; e.g., the impact of Arctic amplification is ignored- tipping points and other nonlinearities and hystereses are not consideredThe result is a simple, wildly optimistic, bounding, defensible "best case" "Net Zero 2023" trajectory:
<image.png>In this scenario,- the "global thermostat" setting reached- 2.0°C in 2011- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015- 2.5°C in March 2023- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach- 1.5°C in 2040- 2.0°C in 2077- 2.2°C in 2100Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points- etc.The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!Thanks, and cheers,Ben Ballard------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
<image.png>The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
<image.png>The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
<image.png>Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
You are absolutely correct Robert. We may be able to avoid
geoengineering and irreversible collapse because of the lag
between tipping response activation and the point of no return.
But we just don't know yet because science on "the point of no
return" is not robust and or completely lacking. So, goals and
policies come first, unless emergency action is required. Right
now, without a restoration goal or policy that recognizes the
risks of prematurely activated tipping responses, we are operating
Earth at great risk.
I have two things for you all this morning from my archives. The
Precautionary Principle is a very widespread and long-used guiding
policy concept, and the origin of the concept of "dangerous
climate change" can tell us a lot about exactly what is mean by
the term. Then I need to get to my mom's in Georgetown (TX) and
continue with recovery after the ice storm in Central Texas.
Between our two lots (I am in Oak Hill in SW Austin) 10 or 12 tons
of limbs came down, over 2 cords of firewood, plus three 12"-14"
cedars at my mom's place. And yes, this was yet another climate
change-caused disaster in Austin, caused by the stall of arctic
amplification.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be widely applied by States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
— Rio Declaration, 1992
And Sierra Club's version:
When an activity potentially threatens human health or the
environment, the proponent of the activity, rather than the
public, should bear the burden of proof as to the harmlessness
of the activity. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
Sierra Club
Origins of the Dangerous Limits to Climate Change
Just exactly what is "dangerous climate change," why was this criteria established, when, and by whom?
Rijsberman and Swart 1990... The actual designation of the 2 C
dangerous limit to warming comes from Stockholm Institute and is
not arbitrary but a reasoned scientific evaluation. This
evaluation was sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) very
specifically for the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) to assign a warming limit to dangerous climate change.
The results of this effort were from a working advisory group and
edited by Rijsberman and Swart. They considered not only 2 C, but
1 C too and when reflected upon today the 1 C limit was very
insightful and accurate far beyond the knowledge of the day,
Whereas the 2 C limit was just the 1 C limit carried a slight bit
further. Below are the money shots from the report:
“Beyond 1.0 °C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear
responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.”
"An absolute temperature limit of 2.0 °C can be viewed as an upper
limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of
non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly."
These rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear responses are what we
are seeing today as active climate tipping or abrupt Earth systems
collapses. They happen 10 to 100 times faster and more extremely
than what we see in climate modeling upon which our climate
polices are based.
Rijsberman and Swart, Targets and Indicators of Climate Change,
The Stockholm Environmental Institute, 1990. One degree C is page
viii, last paragraph, 2 degrees C is first paragraph, page ix.
https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/SEI-Report-TargetsAndIndicatorsOfClimaticChange-1990.pdf
Melton Opinion -- This wording is in my opinion simply
extraordinary. And the fact that it has been the guiding basis for
everything we have attempted to do in our efforts to keep our
world from being harmed is even more extraordinary. In that, how
in the world did we decide that 2 degrees C was an appropriate
target? Golly.
Steep trails,
B
This is an excellent discussion. Ben’s analogy with a home thermostat is correct. To support this, I would offer a clarification to Bruce’s view that “irreversible collapse is inevitable unless we remove the warming perturbation.” Removing the perturbation cannot simply address the warming factors alone. On the thermostat analogy, you can cool down a house by opening the doors and windows while leaving the heating on. It is not possible to remove warming forcings fast enough for a climate relevant timescale, so we have to ‘open the windows’ by bringing in cooling forcing to equal and oppose the warming forcing.
The carbon budget concept only sees the warming side of the equation, ignoring the much easier, faster, safer, cheaper and more effective strategy of balancing warming with cooling. That need for a change of thinking away from the flawed carbon budget model is at the basis of my recently circulated attached diagram.
Ben says “It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that: - The climate is changing, and people are the cause; - Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C; - We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening; - Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warming.” These four critical summary points were elaborated from the Buddhist analogy I presented in an earlier discussion, with the four truths of suffering and its cause, end and solution. The problem is that most people still don’t see the severity of the climate crisis. Complacent refusal to see the catastrophic trajectory is abetted by the false IPCC concept of a remaining carbon budget.
Busting of the carbon budget should be accepted as the context of climate policy. The carbon budget should be revised to the goal of long term conversion of CO2 into useful products, while the main work of addressing warming is done by albedo enhancement. Cutting emissions is marginal to the temperature trajectory.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2023 6:46 AM
To: planetary-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: Temperature trajectory
I have to add this into this discussion because of the outdated nature of a carbon budget. This concept has been used for a couple of decades now and is a mainstay in climate culture and the time has come to stop talking about it and adjust to the new reality that our current temperature is too warm because tipping systems have now activated.
The carbon budget is fundamentally flawed before considering climate sensitivity or a forcing/temperature response time. This failure of the concept has happened within about the last 5 years because climate tipping systems have recently activated. Before about 5 years ago --before we realized that tipping systems were active, the carbon budget was still valid because we could endure warming to 1.5 C or even 2 C or more, and not suffer irreversible tipping collapses. Everything has changed now with the realization that Earth systems are collapsing prematurely, when they were not supposed to collapse until late in the 21st century with business as usual warming (Lenton 2019). Most of these systems in collapse are either directly, or directly related to irreversible tipping responses that once activated, do not self-restore unless the warming that caused them to activate is removed. Therefor a carbon budget with a warming target of 1.5 C is invalid now because with 1.5 C warming, tipping collapses become irreversible. Irreversible tipping means reversal of sequestration services with quantities of natural feedback emissions that dwarf humankind's emissions.
The reason for the carbon budget is that it is based on IPCC scenarios, where the 1,202 scenarios included in AR6 have at best a 1.5 C target and this target does not consider irreversible tipping systems responses. No IPCC scenarios have a restoration warming target or any target less than 1.5 C. This is a classic scenario bias and supersedes any climate sensitivity issues as it matters not what climate sensitivity is when Earth systems are already in tipping collapse because once collapse is activated it does not self-restore unless the current warming that caused the collapses to activate is removed. In other words, irreversible collapse is inevitable unless we remove the warming perturbation to the system that caused these collapses to begin before the point of no return, where Hansen 2008 defines the "point of no return" as that point where irreversibleness is locked in.
This is the fundamental rationale for climate restoration upon which Hansen 2008 bases their 350 ppm limit, and where Hansen 2017 further defines 350 ppm CO2 as (about) 1 C warming in 2100.
Climate sensitivity is still a good piece of science because of shock and awe but in reality, today's temperature of 1.2 C warming above normal --with no further warming-- allows tipping to become irreversible with untenable futures meaning that a carbon budget is no longer meaningful. We passed that point of no return a while back.
Steep trails,
B
(>From my archives)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/02a301d9585d%24abf8ea80%2403eabf80%24%40rtulip.net.
Hi Ben
I am taking the liberty of copying your email to PRAG and HPAC lists.
I think your suggested outline for a journal article makes sense. The planetary thermostat analysis is essentially introduction to why cooling is needed the sooner the better, and can draw from Hansen and Steffen papers, and from Rohling’s The Climate Question. Study of tipping points by Lenton fits your next point, and then we have the policy debate as to why Lenton does not take the logical step of advocating for action to prevent these dangerous phase shifts he has quantified. That brings us to a review of solutions.
The title I suggested, Direct climate cooling through albedo enhancement to brighten the planet, could fit with this outline, supporting the objective of a general review of the case for a paradigm shift in climate policy.
It would be great if Ye Tao, Tom Goreau, Chris Vivian, Robert Chris and Mike MacCracken could agree to co-author. We could also ask Eelco Rohling. I hope there are other distinguished climate scientists and policy analysts who could help.
You ask about the Cooling Return On Investment of a journal article. It can be high. The problem in climate policy is that IPCC and the academic community more generally are restricted to considering peer reviewed literature. Media will report on peer reviewed articles far more than on less prominent publications. Overall, the scientific community is too timid to advocate for immediate cooling, but could engage with well argued advocacy. If a journal like Nature or one of the leading climate journals published such an article, we would have a formal basis to engage in scientific and media debate, which overall is currently lacking.
Thanks & Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2023 3:00 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: Temperature trajectory
Hi Robert,
I believe we need to split our effort into parts:
1) show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more), but don't (yet) offer solutions
2) estimate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential solutions
If we jump straight to 3) we lose our audience....
Cheers,
Ben
PS I wonder what the CROI of a peer reviewed journal article is? (seems like a lot of I, how much R?) 😀
<image001.png>
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
<image002.png>
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
<image003.png>
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
<image004.png>
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XbNP4d-tuThzG%3DPvzxQDjzCAXR%3DZNY_h_zXT6k%2BirgkaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/03c701d95a4a%241f17e640%245d47b2c0%24%40rtulip.net.
Hi Tom
I'm just beginning to engage in this thread that's been running for a few days now.
Do you have evidence or can you refer to credible sources that corroborate the statements you made below. The point I'm trying to get hold of is not whether there's political bias in the IPCC's work, that is relatively easy to substantiate. But whether it was a deliberate and intended act by some actors to slant the the scientific analysis in a particular way. If it was, who were these actors, when did they do this, how did they do it, how was it sustained, and so on.
The IPCC process involves thousands of scientists. My understanding is that the IPCC is purely a review body and does not undertake any primary research itself, although it may provoke research in areas that it regards as worthy of further investigation. I'm reluctant to posit a conspiracy theory in which this whole process has been subverted by dark forces, but if that's what's being proposed, it would be helpful to have some evidence of it.
We know that the SPMs are subjected to considerable political editing. While this might impact the way that the media report the findings, those that take the trouble to engage with the detail often find it to be a mine of really useful information and references to the original research.
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I am tempted to regard the IPCC's considerable shortcomings as emergent properties of its structure and the sociopolitical context in which it is operating, and not the result of some malevolent cabal of controllers.
But if you know something different, please share.
Regards
Robert
Hi Paul
I worry about the use of averages because they mask so much that is important. Here's a thought experiment. How does this work for you?
Imagine that you have an electronically controlled shower in which you can set the water temperature. This works by sensors continuously adjusting the mix of hot and cold water so that irrespective of the temperature at which they arrive, they are mixed to give you exactly the 38C shower that you set. Now imagine that there's a long time lag between the signals that say 'This is the temperature of the cold water' and 'This is the temperature of the hot water', the operation of the valves that control the mix, and the signal that says 'This is the temperature of the water coming out of the shower head.' Now what happens is that the temperature of the shower averages 38C but one moment its 30C and the next its 46C. On average you're getting the perfect shower. In practice your being alternately frozen and scalded.
Similarly, in climate terms, the average hides the extremes and it's the momentary extremes that do the damage.
Whatever metaphors we use to communicate our concerns, IMHO, they have to address this vital point.
Regards
Robert
Recognizing that we are ahead of our audience (which may view us as a fringe, fanatical pro-geoengineering echo chamber), I believe we need to split our communication/education effort into sequential parts:
1) convince ourselves, then show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more)
2) estimate and communicate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential SRM/AE/SAI/MCB/MEER/geoengineering etc. solutions
If we jump straight to 3) we risk losing our audience, and may even poison our later communications effectiveness. The 3 bullets above are not a suggested outline for a journal article, but communication efforts to be undertaken sequentially. We need to listen to the audience and allow them to participate in and influence the discussion.
Although the thermostat analogy and its drastic conclusions seem perfectly clear to me, I could possibly be mistaken. After all, I'm just a layperson boiling down all the glorious complexity of Earth's climate to a single first order linear system and a logarithmic fit of paleoclimate temperature to CO2 - how could that conceivably be wrong? 😀
The following two articles appear to support the opposing position that global temperatures would largely remain level (after a short increase in some cases) or even decrease in the event of GHG emission cessation - that is, there is no substantial "committed warming in the pipeline" and thus the "carbon budget" concept is valid.
1) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? by Zeke Hausfather, to be HPAC's featured 3/23 guest speaker
Also attached is the paper "Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming" which seems to take the same view. I wonder if some of the more climate-knowledge of you could comment on these pieces, as I lack the proper skills.
What I like most about the thermostat analogy is its direct link to the 400 million year paleoclimate data record, which ties even the simplistic first order linear model back to a longstanding observational "gold standard". The models in the papers appear to claim validation simply through agreement with other models, but I don't see where they tie to paleoclimate or other observational data (I may be just missing it).
Thanks very much,
Ben
I’m certainly not saying this is a deliberate effort by IPCC to fudge the conclusions! It’s not a conspiracy, just old fashioned incompetence and special pleading by the energy industry. I agree fully with your last sentence!
My point is that IPCC was given a political mandate by governments to answer the wrong question (controlling CO2 emissions using models, not temperature itself, using data) and have followed it blindly, even though it makes no scientific sense to ignore the vast bulk of the climate responses to CO2 because they will come long after the next election or coup.
I helped draft the original version of the UNFCCC as Senior Scientific Affairs Officer for Global Climate Change and Biodiversity at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development.
In 1989 I inserted language requiring COMPLETE accounting of ALL GHG sources and sinks (including sources and sinks not listed, i.e. pretty much everything except fossil fuel use, and ignoring the much larger natural sources and sinks of GHGs), monitoring of climatically sensitive ecosystems for signs of climatic stress, and mechanisms to reduce GHG emissions if climatic stress was proven.
These were required for the treaty to be complete and to meet its own goals of preventing dangerous interference with the climate system.
ALL of these points were eliminated by governments, who did not want to solve the global problem, only to limit their own liability for doing so.
The result: a treaty that is scientifically unsound, and incapable of meeting its own goals, due to intentionally incomplete or dishonest accounting of the sort that would get any real accountant imprisoned for fraud if they did this with dollars instead of carbon.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:19 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>, peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>,
Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>, geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
Hi Tom
3) "Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming", attached
Thanks very much,
Ben
After some reflection on the valuable comments in this thread, I have drawn together some initial tentative thoughts about how an academic paper might be structured to address the issues we've been discussing. I think the idea of progressing this in parallel with a series of pieces written for different audiences makes a great deal of sense. There are many sub-topics and publics and it would make the material much more accessible if it were chopped up into bite-sized pieces written to appeal to those different interests (media, politicians, schoolchildren, activists, etc.)
I suggest that a way forward may be for those that wish to be involved in writing any of this come together in a separate group dedicated to that task.
Regards
Robert
Here's my initial outline.
The question
Global climate policy is fixated on reducing atmospheric CO2e in the expectation that this will deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’ of the:
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Moreover, this is to:
be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. (UNFCCC Constitution, art.2)
More than three decades after these goals were articulated and agreed by the international community, the crucial question is whether a policy focussed solely on greenhouse gas concentrations, even if delivered at the greatest possible speed, could prevent dangerous human interference in the climate system without undue disruption to the ecosystem more widely and food production and economic growth.
This paper is in N parts. In the first we examine the literature, including recent advances in the understanding of slow climate feedbacks and their representation in the climate models on which climate policy is largely based. We consider whether this new understanding is consistent with current global climate policy delivering the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’. We conclude that a policy focussed solely on managing long wave radiation (LWR) is no longer capable of delivering that objective. In the second, we consider the scope for alternative policy interventions with the potential to minimise the risks from dangerous human interference in the climate system, if not completely avert it. We conclude that albedo enhancement (AE) is now necessary to limit future risks from climate change, even though AE itself will introduce its own additional risks. In the third part we consider the state of climate science around AE, and the many different AE technologies, their applications and risk profiles. We conclude that further research is required to assess AE technologies but there is good reason to suppose that with the appropriate research and development, the risks entailed by AE would be significantly less than those from a policy regime that excluded AE. In the fourth we examine the socio-political dimensions of climate change to identify the geopolitical forces impacting the allocation of funding and the establishment of a regulatory regime for the research and development of AE. Particular attention is given to the vulnerabilities and interests of the Global South and Indigenous Peoples. In the fifth, we consider the implications for the global economy of a future with and without AE and identify some of the trade-offs that might be encountered in developing a portfolio of climate policy response likely to be sufficient to deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’.
References
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, 1992, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------
On Mar 20, 2023, at 12:48 AM, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
<image001.png>
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
<image002.png>
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
<image003.png>
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
<image004.png>
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XbNP4d-tuThzG%3DPvzxQDjzCAXR%3DZNY_h_zXT6k%2BirgkaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
<s41558-022-01372-y.pdf>
On Mar 20, 2023, at 12:48 AM, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
<image001.png>
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
<image002.png>
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
<image003.png>
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
<image004.png>
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XbNP4d-tuThzG%3DPvzxQDjzCAXR%3DZNY_h_zXT6k%2BirgkaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/CAOJO1Xb%2BC209iuLBA-gCPdZVBp49z3pCGabLWCoW_gnodLpspA%40mail.gmail.com.
<s41558-022-01372-y.pdf>
Quote from your email:
Recognizing that we are ahead of our audience (which may view us as a fringe, fanatical pro-geoengineering echo chamber), I believe we need to split our communication/education effort into sequential parts:
1) convince ourselves, then show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more)
2) estimate and communicate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential SRM/AE/SAI/MCB/MEER/geoengineering etc. solutions
If we jump straight to 3) we risk losing our audience, and may even poison our later communications effectiveness. The 3 bullets above are not a suggested outline for a journal article, but communication efforts to be undertaken sequentially. We need to listen to the audience and allow them to participate in and influence the discussion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/E6BC2ACF-DCD1-422D-BF1A-721A59572AB4%40mac.com.
On Mar 20, 2023, at 3:23 PM, Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Replying toSorry, different topic, Professor Mann. Did you hear about the paper by Hansen et al which says (if I understand it correctly) there will be a temperature rise of 10 degrees? Very frightening stuff. Do we have to worry? Did the IPCC get it wrong all the time?==========================
Replying to
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CA%2BKfrk3BVu1w2_heWzBSxPSP6nD0WnK4JvJbU%2BR60T6t5SEb4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
<Image.jpeg><nEvcmwf5_normal.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CA%2BKfrk3BVu1w2_heWzBSxPSP6nD0WnK4JvJbU%2BR60T6t5SEb4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1602473156.1927996.1679381273371%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Tom, my slightly tongue in cheek comment is meant for anti-geoengineers, not energy policy makers.
From: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Sent: 21 March 2023 11:31
To: Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Cc: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
It would be so nice if energy policy were a democratic choice, as you suggest!
Do you really think energy policy is decided bottom-up by democratic choice of consumers, or top-down by energy producers, who give politicians their pocket money, and policies?
If the latter then your appeal is barking up the wrong tree.
Those who make energy policy don’t care at all about the future if they make a profit now.
==========================
what's your view on the negative forcing from aerosols, which will reduce in the coming two decades and increase the co2 forcing that's in the paper? Accelerating to breach 1.5c by the end of the 20s and 2c by early 40s?
==========================
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1602473156.1927996.1679381273371%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Hi Kevin
Nice little drama. Nothing that everyone on these lists won't already be aware of, but it does bring home how effective the forces of conservation are. For all the bleating from the UN and IPCC yesterday, I don't see any tangible evidence that those forces are any less bent on lining their pockets while they destroy everything on which their supposed success depends. The ultimate irony!
Maybe I'm setting the bar too high, but I don't see much hope until fossil fuel producers begin aggressively to close down their FF production and transition at scale to ultra low and zero emissions energy (what I refer to as ULZEE). They can do this willingly or in response to worldwide state coercive intervention. That's a detail, albeit a politically significant one. The problem is that this transition has been left so late, that it's unlikely it can now occur in an orderly manner because of it's knock on consequences across almost every aspect of current economic activity, particularly in developed nations. If the transition means many must suffer some pain, and some more pain than others, the challenge is to minimise your pain even at the expense of others' - a macabre global zero sum game. And while global elites are arguing about that, the few remaining threads holding the global warming Sword of Damocles, ping one after the other.
The audience for the sequel to Smoking Guns might be very small.
Regards
Robert
The BBC did a good radio drama on it called Smoking Guns.
It is available on BBC Sounds.
Regards,Kevin
--
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/a14da076-9299-406c-ce95-919d98dd7f31%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Robert
Tom
Am I right in understanding that in broad terms you agree with
Hansen et al's Warming in the Pipeline methodology and
conclusions, and disagree with Michael Mann's tweet below in which
he supports his dismissal of Hansen et al by reference to the
chart on page SPM-6 of IPCC SR1.5? See Mann's other comments in this
tweet thread.
-------------------------------
). The incorrect claims he makes in the preprint won't survive peer review (that's what it's a bad idea to publicize prior to peer review)
--------------------------------
Robert
Even the best climate models are intrinsically underestimates, even if they model everything they know perfectly, because 1) they use too short a time horizon to capture most of the effects, and 2) they completely miss modelling many positive feedback mechanisms that the paleoclimate data clearly document operate in the Earth climate system.
The paleoclimate records show much greater sensitivity of sea level and temperature to CO2 than IPCC models project with model-based projections that only capture the first ephemeral effects, not the long-term ones, providing a false sense of security about the all too real problems we need to solve urgently to avert the worst impacts of runaway warming.
It’s worse than they think:
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:44 PM
To: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Cc: "rob...@rtulip.net" <rob...@rtulip.net>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>, peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
Hi Ben
My assessment of the core issue here is the way in which slow climate feedbacks are reflected in the climate models on which the zero emissions commitment (ZEC) is based. This a central point explained in Hansen et al's Warming in the Pipeline. Those in the IPCC echo chamber are expressing conclusions based on modelling results. According to Hansen and others, no (few?) climate models account for slow climate feedbacks and this has led to a serious undercalling of the warming in the pipeline. Their methodology has used recent more accurate paleo data as the base line and they argue that this gives a picture that represents all the Earth system feedbacks. hence their view that at the doubling of CO2e that we have now arrived at (280ppm to 560ppm) there's more like 10C in the pipeline.
To this they add two further important details. First the climate response tome - the time it takes for surface temperature to reflect changes in radiative forcing from changes in atmospheric GHGs - is much longer than previously thought. This totally scuppers the modelling results on which ZEC=0 is based. Second, they reckon that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols is more like 3C, three times what was previously thought. As these leach out of the atmosphere very quickly with the increased use of cleaner fuels and reductions in fossil fuels more generally, the cooling effect will be reversed, resulting in much more rapid short term increases in surface temperature.
Remember that I'm not a climate scientist so everything I say on these matters should be treated with caution.
One of the great strengths of this group is that it brings together a diverse bunch of people. This enables us to look at the vital questions from a much wider range of perspectives. We need to captialise on that to produce some communications materials that transcend boundaries, yet are internally consistent.
Regards
Robert
--
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/d2608220-3dcf-933a-8aa9-347e58b5471a%40gmail.com.
1) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? by Zeke Hausfather, to be HPAC's featured 3/23 guest speaker
3) Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming, attached
Quote from your email:
Recognizing that we are ahead of our audience (which may view us as a fringe, fanatical pro-geoengineering echo chamber), I believe we need to split our communication/education effort into sequential parts:
1) convince ourselves, then show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more)
2) estimate and communicate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential SRM/AE/SAI/MCB/MEER/geoengineering etc. solutions
If we jump straight to 3) we risk losing our audience, and may even poison our later communications effectiveness. The 3 bullets above are not a suggested outline for a journal article, but communication efforts to be undertaken sequentially. We need to listen to the audience and allow them to participate in and influence the discussion.
Yes
"If emissions continue unchecked, then further warming of 2.6o-4.8oC would be expected by the end of this century. Even at the low end, this would have serious implications for human societies and the natural world. For more information about climate change from leading scientific academies, please visit …"
Also please see below comment from the Royal Society about planetary cooling. It's almost like a throwaway line, on the basis that there are no cooling options; the punchline is the last sentence.
Thank you again Ben,
Rebecca.
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 05:41, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rebecca,At Peter Jenkins' request I've trimmed the distribution list to just PRAG and HPAC, which is where this discussion started.
My first goal is to reach a consensus on whether item 1) below is valid - i.e, that upon cessation of CO2 emissions, Earth temperature would roughly continue to rise asymptotically towards a "thermotstat set point" corresponding to the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time. If this isn't true, the thermostat analogy is moot. [RB] To me, the key point is continued temperature rise even after net zero or even negative emissions pathways, because of committed warming. I am not sure how important the idea of the equilibrium temperature is, for the action we want to galvanize.It appears there are 2 opposing camps on this question - the "James Hansen camp" who believe the above, and the "Michael Mann camp" who believe temperature rise would stop immediately or shortly thereafter. I believe most PRAG and HPAC members follow James Hansen, so I have provided 2 links and an attached paper presenting the opposing Michael Mann view for balance. [RB] - #2 below appears to be more on the lines of Hansen - am I missing something?
1) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? by Zeke Hausfather, to be HPAC's featured 3/23 guest speaker
3) Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming, attached
I've asked the PRAG and HPAC science folks to look at these references and see if they can poke any holes in the arguments, as I'm not qualified to do so. If we convince ourselves that the James Hansen camp is right, then we're ready to work on convincing the Michael Mann camp and the public, for whom the thermostat analogy may be useful. If not, we scrap the analogy and resume advocacy in terms of tiny remaining carbon budgets. [RB] I thought you, Ben, were moving away from the concept of a carbon budget.You say the thermostat analogy doesn't work well for you, I believe because it addresses only average temperature and not the extremes which do the real damage, as in Robert Chris's bathtub analogy. The thought was to present the simplified analogy first for ease of understanding and show that even in this "best case" scenario we're already well past the 2.0°C carbon budget. Then we present a laundry list of other factors, each of which makes reality even worse. Off-average temperature extremes fall in this category. The advantage of this approach is that we can quantitatively describe a very easy-to-understand best case bounding scenario, then qualitatively discuss additional factors that make things worse without getting mired in gory quantitative details. Does this make sense to you, or is there a better way to be simultaneously simple, accurate, and compelling? [RB] - I've changed my mind and I agree with how you've structured the approach. I don't mind the thermometer if it has a tight argument. Do we need to call it a 2.0°C carbon budget? I think it would be better to use language we find useful and not buy in to the concepts which have limited use or are misleading.Finally, can you provide more information on how discussion of paleolithic timeframes feeds into climate deniers? (I'm not saying it doesn't, I just want to make sure I understand the concern so I might address it.). It seems to me that the historical/paleolithic record is the best data we have on how the Earth has responded to varying conditions in the past, and unless it has undergone massive fundamental changes I would expect it to react roughly the same way in the future. [RB] The point of the climate sceptics is that the planet has had these high temperatures before and they are not sure if it's an issue. The thing I say to them is the speed of the change and the effect of the tipping points on life/the climate as we know it. I like the graphs that show holocene and anthropocene timescales.
On 22 Mar 2023, at 10:19 am, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
Mann is not to be trusted on this issue. I engaged him in email exchanges after he and a certain journalist held talks promoting the SP1.5C narrative through various media.
From the limited and evasive responses I have received, he is knowingly promoting a false narrative that he must knows is incorrect. How can someone with his knowledge not know that the narrative is false! One can only guess at the underlying causes. When one is in a high place, one may no longer free to exercise integrity. People have children and an address, afterall.
Best,
Ye
On 3/21/2023 2:11 PM, Robert Chris wrote:
Tom
Am I right in understanding that in broad terms you agree with Hansen et al's Warming in the Pipeline methodology and conclusions, and disagree with Michael Mann's tweet below in which he supports his dismissal of Hansen et al by reference to the chart on page SPM-6 of IPCC SR1.5? See Mann's other comments in this tweet thread.
-------------------------------
). The incorrect claims he makes in the preprint won't survive peer review (that's what it's a bad idea to publicize prior to peer review)
--------------------------------
RegardsRobert
On 21/03/2023 17:47, Tom Goreau wrote:
Even the best climate models are intrinsically underestimates, even if they model everything they know perfectly, because 1) they use too short a time horizon to capture most of the effects, and 2) they completely miss modelling many positive feedback mechanisms that the paleoclimate data clearly document operate in the Earth climate system.
The paleoclimate records show much greater sensitivity of sea level and temperature to CO2 than IPCC models project with model-based projections that only capture the first ephemeral effects, not the long-term ones, providing a false sense of security about the all too real problems we need to solve urgently to avert the worst impacts of runaway warming.
It’s worse than they think:
<image001.png>
1) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? by Zeke Hausfather, to be HPAC's featured 3/23 guest speaker
3) "Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming", attached
Thanks very much,
Ben
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:21 AM Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
After some reflection on the valuable comments in this thread, I have drawn together some initial tentative thoughts about how an academic paper might be structured to address the issues we've been discussing. I think the idea of progressing this in parallel with a series of pieces written for different audiences makes a great deal of sense. There are many sub-topics and publics and it would make the material much more accessible if it were chopped up into bite-sized pieces written to appeal to those different interests (media, politicians, schoolchildren, activists, etc.)
I suggest that a way forward may be for those that wish to be involved in writing any of this come together in a separate group dedicated to that task.
Regards
Robert
Here's my initial outline.
The question
Global climate policy is fixated on reducing atmospheric CO2e in the expectation that this will deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’ of the:
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Moreover, this is to:
be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. (UNFCCC Constitution, art.2)
More than three decades after these goals were articulated and agreed by the international community, the crucial question is whether a policy focussed solely on greenhouse gas concentrations, even if delivered at the greatest possible speed, could prevent dangerous human interference in the climate system without undue disruption to the ecosystem more widely and food production and economic growth.
This paper is in N parts. In the first we examine the literature, including recent advances in the understanding of slow climate feedbacks and their representation in the climate models on which climate policy is largely based. We consider whether this new understanding is consistent with current global climate policy delivering the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’. We conclude that a policy focussed solely on managing long wave radiation (LWR) is no longer capable of delivering that objective. In the second, we consider the scope for alternative policy interventions with the potential to minimise the risks from dangerous human interference in the climate system, if not completely avert it. We conclude that albedo enhancement (AE) is now necessary to limit future risks from climate change, even though AE itself will introduce its own additional risks. In the third part we consider the state of climate science around AE, and the many different AE technologies, their applications and risk profiles. We conclude that further research is required to assess AE technologies but there is good reason to suppose that with the appropriate research and development, the risks entailed by AE would be significantly less than those from a policy regime that excluded AE. In the fourth we examine the socio-political dimensions of climate change to identify the geopolitical forces impacting the allocation of funding and the establishment of a regulatory regime for the research and development of AE. Particular attention is given to the vulnerabilities and interests of the Global South and Indigenous Peoples. In the fifth, we consider the implications for the global economy of a future with and without AE and identify some of the trade-offs that might be encountered in developing a portfolio of climate policy response likely to be sufficient to deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’.
References
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, 1992, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 20/03/2023 04:48, Ben Ballard wrote:
Hi all,
I accidentally hit "Reply" instead of "Reply all" a couple messages ago in this thread, so the first part of this may be a repeat for you.
Recognizing that we are ahead of our audience (which may view us as a fringe, fanatical pro-geoengineering echo chamber), I believe we need to split our communication/education effort into sequential parts:
1) convince ourselves, then show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more)
2) estimate and communicate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential SRM/AE/SAI/MCB/MEER/geoengineering etc. solutions
If we jump straight to 3) we risk losing our audience, and may even poison our later communications effectiveness. The 3 bullets above are not a suggested outline for a journal article, but communication efforts to be undertaken sequentially. We need to listen to the audience and allow them to participate in and influence the discussion.
Although the thermostat analogy and its drastic conclusions seem perfectly clear to me, I could possibly be mistaken. After all, I'm just a layperson boiling down all the glorious complexity of Earth's climate to a single first order linear system and a logarithmic fit of paleoclimate temperature to CO2 - how could that conceivably be wrong? 😀
The following two articles appear to support the opposing position that global temperatures would largely remain level (after a short increase in some cases) or even decrease in the event of GHG emission cessation - that is, there is no substantial "committed warming in the pipeline" and thus the "carbon budget" concept is valid.
1) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? by Zeke Hausfather, to be HPAC's featured 3/23 guest speaker
Also attached is the paper "Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming" which seems to take the same view. I wonder if some of the more climate-knowledge of you could comment on these pieces, as I lack the proper skills.
<image002.png>
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
<image003.png>
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
<image004.png>
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
<image005.png>
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XbNP4d-tuThzG%3DPvzxQDjzCAXR%3DZNY_h_zXT6k%2BirgkaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/d2608220-3dcf-933a-8aa9-347e58b5471a%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/90e10a87-109b-d869-0112-1bdf8c3baaaf%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/c9041516-25e6-84e0-cf7d-b3d801be066b%40rowland.harvard.edu.
--
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/a14da076-9299-406c-ce95-919d98dd7f31%40gmail.com.
IPCC has certainly left out many critical factors in climate change, but that may be due to omission rather than commission.
IPCC’s fundamental flaw is that they were given the wrong homework assignment, to predict changes on a time scale that has no relationship to the planetary response time scale over which it must be integrated, in particular the thousands of years of time lag in global temperature response due to ocean mixing and ice melting.
Using politically convenient but artificial and physically irrelevant time short time scales very cleverly, and conveniently, leaves out most of the long term temperature effects almost of the inevitable sea level response.
Some might see discounting the future to zero (as Nobel prize winning economists do) as a nefarious conspiracy to suppress effective action, but I fear it is just due to incompetence of policy makers who are easily bamboozled because they can’t tell which time scales are relevant to the planet’s future, and are intensely focused on covering their assets invested in fossil fuel production, distribution, consumption, subsidies, and kickbacks, not on the future.
Fossil fuel subsidies are trillions of dollars per year!
IPCC scientists are mostly specialists so focused on particular mechanisms that they poorly understand others, but they are not trying to suppress what they don’t know, they just leave it out. As mainstream scientists they are our friends, and will keep an open mind as they learn more, but there is so much real information buried in fake news and red herrings out there it is very hard to know what is worth learning more about.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your insight. I agree that we have to be careful that the article is not viewed as an attack on the general scientific community--the goal has to be to win them over to a more inclusive, realistic and scientific analysis. I'll see that we avoid the word "mainstream"... Nevertheless, I think the article has to be sharp enough to clearly point out what is factually, methodologically, and morally wrong in the current approach: i.e., because current mitigation methods are based on incomplete scientific analyses, they will fail to prevent catastrophic climate change.
By the way, the AR6 Synthesis Report is just wishful thinking. It still hopes that net zero can be reached in time to avoid disaster, downplays the catastrophic dangers and costs of overshoot (e.g., of passing climate tipping points), barely mentions CDR, and completely ignores the urgent need for a new strategy focused on reducing the EEI to re-establish a safe, stable climate, an approach which will require the large-scale deployment of both CDR and SRM.
Cheers,
Graeme
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7:31 AM
To: Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Cc: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>, Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>, peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>,
healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
It would be so nice if energy policy were a democratic choice, as you suggest!
Do you really think energy policy is decided bottom-up by democratic choice of consumers, or top-down by energy producers, who give politicians their pocket money, and policies?
If the latter then your appeal is barking up the wrong tree.
Those who make energy policy don’t care at all about the future if they make a profit now.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: "'Clive Elsworth' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 2:48 AM
To: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
==========================
what's your view on the negative forcing from aerosols, which will reduce in the coming two decades and increase the co2 forcing that's in the paper? Accelerating to breach 1.5c by the end of the 20s and 2c by early 40s?
==========================
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1602473156.1927996.1679381273371%40email.ionos.co.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/7D54E6A7-24B0-4A92-A76D-9B285E4D1475%40globalcoral.org.
It would be so nice if energy policy were a democratic choice, as you suggest!
Do you really think energy policy is decided bottom-up by democratic choice of consumers, or top-down by energy producers, who give politicians their pocket money, and policies?
If the latter then your appeal is barking up the wrong tree.
Those who make energy policy don’t care at all about the future if they make a profit now.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: "'Clive Elsworth' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 2:48 AM
To: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
==========================
what's your view on the negative forcing from aerosols, which will reduce in the coming two decades and increase the co2 forcing that's in the paper? Accelerating to breach 1.5c by the end of the 20s and 2c by early 40s?
==========================
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1602473156.1927996.1679381273371%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Hi Ben
My assessment of the core issue here is the way in which slow climate feedbacks are reflected in the climate models on which the zero emissions commitment (ZEC) is based. This a central point explained in Hansen et al's Warming in the Pipeline. Those in the IPCC echo chamber are expressing conclusions based on modelling results. According to Hansen and others, no (few?) climate models account for slow climate feedbacks and this has led to a serious undercalling of the warming in the pipeline. Their methodology has used recent more accurate paleo data as the base line and they argue that this gives a picture that represents all the Earth system feedbacks. hence their view that at the doubling of CO2e that we have now arrived at (280ppm to 560ppm) there's more like 10C in the pipeline.
To this they add two further important details. First the climate response tome - the time it takes for surface temperature to reflect changes in radiative forcing from changes in atmospheric GHGs - is much longer than previously thought. This totally scuppers the modelling results on which ZEC=0 is based. Second, they reckon that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols is more like 3C, three times what was previously thought. As these leach out of the atmosphere very quickly with the increased use of cleaner fuels and reductions in fossil fuels more generally, the cooling effect will be reversed, resulting in much more rapid short term increases in surface temperature.
Remember that I'm not a climate scientist so everything I say on these matters should be treated with caution.
One of the great strengths of this group is that it brings
together a diverse bunch of people. This enables us to look at
the vital questions from a much wider range of perspectives. We
need to captialise on that to produce some communications
materials that transcend boundaries, yet are internally
consistent.
Regards
Robert
After some reflection on the valuable comments in this thread, I have drawn together some initial tentative thoughts about how an academic paper might be structured to address the issues we've been discussing. I think the idea of progressing this in parallel with a series of pieces written for different audiences makes a great deal of sense. There are many sub-topics and publics and it would make the material much more accessible if it were chopped up into bite-sized pieces written to appeal to those different interests (media, politicians, schoolchildren, activists, etc.)
I suggest that a way forward may be for those that wish to be involved in writing any of this come together in a separate group dedicated to that task.
Regards
Robert
Here's my initial outline.
The question
Global climate policy is fixated on reducing atmospheric CO2e in the expectation that this will deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’ of the:
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Moreover, this is to:
be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. (UNFCCC Constitution, art.2)
More than three decades after these goals were articulated and agreed by the international community, the crucial question is whether a policy focussed solely on greenhouse gas concentrations, even if delivered at the greatest possible speed, could prevent dangerous human interference in the climate system without undue disruption to the ecosystem more widely and food production and economic growth.
This paper is in N parts. In the first we examine the literature, including recent advances in the understanding of slow climate feedbacks and their representation in the climate models on which climate policy is largely based. We consider whether this new understanding is consistent with current global climate policy delivering the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’. We conclude that a policy focussed solely on managing long wave radiation (LWR) is no longer capable of delivering that objective. In the second, we consider the scope for alternative policy interventions with the potential to minimise the risks from dangerous human interference in the climate system, if not completely avert it. We conclude that albedo enhancement (AE) is now necessary to limit future risks from climate change, even though AE itself will introduce its own additional risks. In the third part we consider the state of climate science around AE, and the many different AE technologies, their applications and risk profiles. We conclude that further research is required to assess AE technologies but there is good reason to suppose that with the appropriate research and development, the risks entailed by AE would be significantly less than those from a policy regime that excluded AE. In the fourth we examine the socio-political dimensions of climate change to identify the geopolitical forces impacting the allocation of funding and the establishment of a regulatory regime for the research and development of AE. Particular attention is given to the vulnerabilities and interests of the Global South and Indigenous Peoples. In the fifth, we consider the implications for the global economy of a future with and without AE and identify some of the trade-offs that might be encountered in developing a portfolio of climate policy response likely to be sufficient to deliver the UNFCCC’s ‘ultimate objective’.
References
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, 1992, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------
Even the best climate models are intrinsically underestimates, even if they model everything they know perfectly, because 1) they use too short a time horizon to capture most of the effects, and 2) they completely miss modelling many positive feedback mechanisms that the paleoclimate data clearly document operate in the Earth climate system.
The paleoclimate records show much greater sensitivity of sea level and temperature to CO2 than IPCC models project with model-based projections that only capture the first ephemeral effects, not the long-term ones, providing a false sense of security about the all too real problems we need to solve urgently to avert the worst impacts of runaway warming.
It’s worse than they think:
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:44 PM
To: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
--
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/d2608220-3dcf-933a-8aa9-347e58b5471a%40gmail.com.
Mann is not to be trusted on this issue. I engaged him in email
exchanges after he and a certain journalist held talks promoting
the SP1.5C narrative through various media.
From the limited and evasive responses I have received, he is
knowingly promoting a false narrative that he must knows is
incorrect. How can someone with his knowledge not know that the
narrative is false! One can only guess at the underlying
causes. When one is in a high place, one may no longer free to
exercise integrity. People have children and an address,
afterall.
Best,
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/90e10a87-109b-d869-0112-1bdf8c3baaaf%40gmail.com.
Yes
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 2:11 PM
Thanks for doing that! Just catching up on emails after a loooonggggg day in Kroo Bay. I will send a separate email to Peter Jenkins to apologize.
Today, we presented prototype roofing material and experimental plans to the residents of the community who will participate in the medium scale neighborhood trial. The plan was received with enthusiasm by the people. Sensors should be deployed within a week, and mirrors, a month.
Cheers,
Ye
Hi all,
I started this thread a few days ago to offer and explore a simple "home thermostat with time lag" analogy of the Earth climate system for non-technical audiences. This analogy claims in simple terms that we have already "set Earth's thermostat" to approximately 2.5°C and climbing, but that global temperatures just haven't caught up yet. I proposed a strategy of three sequential parts to deploy the analogy:
1) convince ourselves, then show the world that we have already set Earth's thermostat to 2.5°C (or more)
2) estimate and communicate global impacts from that level of warming, including likely tipping points along the way
3) only then offer potential SRM/AE/SAI/MCB/MEER/geoengineering etc. solutions
I would like to share my insights and knowledge gained through prototypes as a co-author. Please include me in any threads or shared docs.Jonathan Cole.Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 17, 2023, at 2:07 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. It seems that a consensus is emerging among several of us contributing to the PRAG/HPAC/NOAC groups. Perhaps the time has come for us to draw these ideas together in a formal manner and submit it to one of the leading peer reviewed journals for publication.
This would have three major benefits. First it would oblige us to present our understanding of the science and policy in a more considered and thorough form, properly argued and comprehensively referenced. Second, it would subject our thinking to peer review. This is likely to lead to it being improved. Third, in the appropriate journal, it would likely get more coverage and be available for others to cite, something that would be less likely from a blog or post in the grey literature environment.
Our principal challenge is not simply to get the message out there, but to do so in a ways that maximises its reach.
Who would like to offer themselves as a co-author on such a project?
Regards
Robert
On 17/03/2023 04:47, Anderson, Paul wrote:
Ben,
This message is to encourage you (maybe with others?) to produce a short, readable document using what you have already written about the Thermostat analogy. It needs to be somewhere accessible, not just in an email message that will soon be “lost”.
What are your thoughts on this? Who else would or could assist with this?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ben Ballard
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:10 PM
To: Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
You don't often get email from benwb...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
Hi Stephen and all,
As I fall very close to the left end of the layman->scientist continuum, I strive to describe these critical concepts at the high school level. I appreciate your comments!
I believe we need to eradicate the "carbon budget" concept and convince the world that we have already set the global "thermostat" to a minimum of 2.5°C before we will gain much traction with cooling and geoengineering.
Do any of us know people professing the carbon budget view at climate institutions, with whom we could engage? I emailed the instructor from the 2021 online University of Edinburgh CCS course which first taught me about the carbon budget, but I have not yet received a response.
Cheers,
Ben
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 5:08 PM Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Ben,
I think your thermostat analogy has a lot of potential for helping ordinary people understand that there is "committed warming in the pipeline" that will carry the planet past tipping points if cooling is not undertaken promptly. Your graphs incorporating Ye Tao's and Thomas Anderl's "thermostat settings" are straightforward and easy to understand.
I retired last year as the director of a small environmental nonprofit in New York and have been busily learning about climate. PRAG and HPAC are vital resources in my quest to understand climate issues and how they might be addressed, particularly the need for cooling.
I agree that language must be found to convey critical climate concepts to lay people such that they grasp the urgency of the situation in which we find ourselves. Ultimately, a solution to the climate crisis, if there is to be one, can only come through politics.
Best regards, Stephen Penningroth
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:16 AM Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello PRAG and all,
Thank you for entertaining my question two PRAG calls ago regarding beliefs about future temperature trajectories. I believe most people, including many climate scientists, aren't open to unconventional solutions like PRAG's in part because they don't truly recognize the severity of the crisis.
It has taken about 30 years for most people to agree that:
- The climate is changing, and people are the cause
- Severe impacts will occur at 1.5°C warming, with catastrophic impacts at 2.0°C
- We're now at about ~1.1°C warming and climbing rapidly, with bad impacts already happening
- Climate change impacts are already much worse than had been anticipated for 1.1°C warming
This is a good start. Unfortunately, a widespread belief in the flawed carbon budget concept leads many people and organizations (including IPCC, CarbonBrief, Global Carbon Project, Mercator Research on Global Commons and Climate Change, Climate Clock, University of Edinburgh, and many more) to think further GHG emissions are needed to increase warming from the current ~1.1°C level to the severe 1.5°C and catastrophic 2.0°C levels and beyond. In reality, emissions have already "pushed Earth's thermostat up" well above 2.0°C, and we are just waiting for Earth's temperature to catch up.
Before geoengineering can take hold, I believe we need to get this message across to the widest possible audience, both technical and technical. For your consideration, I propose a simplified but adequately accurate thermostat analogy, in which:
1) CO2 concentration drives global temperature, much as a home thermostat drives house temperature
2) For every CO2 concentration there is a corresponding equilibrium global temperature, analogous to the home thermostat setting
3) Earth's temperature takes time to respond to CO2 concentration changes, like the time it takes house temperature to respond to a thermostat setting change
Simplifications in the analogy err on the optimistic/conservative side:
- CO2 emissions stop now, and future atmospheric concentration is fixed at its current level
- translation from CO2 concentration to equilibrium temperature follows Thomas Anderl's logarthmic fit to 400 My paleoclimate models, which is more conservative than Ye Tao's linear fit to 800,000 year ice core data
- future global temperatures approach the equilibrium "thermostat setting" according to an exponential decay with a 50 year time constant (parameterized time constant open to suggestion)
- warming from non-CO2 GHG's is ignored
- global temperature is assumed spatially uniform; e.g., the impact of Arctic amplification is ignored
- tipping points and other nonlinearities and hystereses are not considered
The result is a simple, wildly optimistic, bounding, defensible "best case" "Net Zero 2023" trajectory:
In this scenario,
- the "global thermostat" setting reached
- 2.0°C in 2011
- 2.2°C at the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015
- 2.5°C in March 2023
- global temperature anomaly relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "ppre-industrial era" will reach
- 1.5°C in 2040
- 2.0°C in 2077
- 2.2°C in 2100
Then, qualitatively, we can argue that warming and impacts will actually be greater for each of the model simplifications. For example,
- GHG emissions are actually increasing, continuing to push the "thermostat setting" ever higher instead of leveling off
- if GHG emissions do decrease, some aerosol cooling will be lost
- warming is greater than shown due to unmodeled non-CO2 GHG's
- there is probably more "committed warming in the pipeline" (to combine Ye Tao's and James Hansen's terminology) than this model includes
- the Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average, bringing on multiple near-term tipping points
- etc.
The intent is to debunk the carbon budget concept and make a compelling case that at ~420 ppm CO2 Earth is already headed for well above 2.0°C warming, without requiring detailed climate science knowledge from the audience.
Please let me know if you think this communication strategy might have merit, as I am just a retired engineer and not a scientist!
Thanks, and cheers,
Ben Ballard
------------------
If interested, here are some more details on how I arrived at this model:
Ye Tao's excellent diagram shows how Earth's temperature has varied in response to slow vs. fast changes in CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years (I love the use of color to represent time on a logarithmic scale!):
The blue samples and main trend line show equilibrium warming vs. CO2 concentration from 800,000 years ago until ~200 years ago, when GHG concentration changed only very slowly and temperature stayed close to the main trend line. This is like pushing your home thermostat up or down no more than ~one degree per day; you would hardly notice the difference between the thermostat setting and the house temperature.
On the other hand, the yellow, orange and red samples from the last 200 years show that as we pushed CO2 concentration up very quickly, Earth's temperature hasn't been able to rise quickly enough to stay on the main trend line. This is like suddenly pushing your home thermostat way up - it takes a while for the house temperature to respond, during which time the house remains colder than the thermostat setting. If we stop pushing Earth's thermostat up (i.e., increasing CO2 concentration), temperature will continue to rise until it eventually reaches the equilibrium temperature for the CO2 concentration. The sharp angle between the blue main trend line and the yellow-to-red transient response curve is an indication of the time constant for global temperature to respond to CO2 concentration changes.
The next diagram shows two possible conversions from atmospheric CO2 concentration to equilibrium global temperature (i.e., the "global thermostat setting"), relative to the IPCC 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" baseline. The red scale is Ye Tao's main trend line from above, but with the x axis converted from logarithmic to linear; the 9 points "eyeballed" from the graph above fall very nearly on a straight line, so this conversion is modeled as a straight linear function. The second conversion scale is from Thomas Anderl, and is a logarithmic fit to paleoclimatic simulations going back 400 million years.
The diagram below uses measured CO2 concentrations from 1850 to 2023 to show the corresponding equilibrium temperature "thermostat settings" for each of the two conversion scales (red and blue), and measured warming for the same time period (black).
Even Thomas Anderl's more conservative scale indicates that we humans had already set Earth's thermostat to 2.2°C warming when we adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, and it now stands at 2.5°C due to the CO2 emissions in the subsequent 8 years. The difference between the the black and blue lines represents the lag in Earth temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration.
--
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/CAOJO1XatWx1ooegKmGbAwYb8t9v7FHx1-S_BtOpqu9N2cjsLNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/CAOJO1XZA6R5kuZkYDDA1Af%2B11kEBVdqOwopLmyRoiSg8X7FPVw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/d015b706-0330-10de-d631-981e95db19dc%40gmail.com.
Ben,
Are there any “concentrations” or sub-groups within the lack of consensus, such as
1. temp begins to decline soon after Net Zero
2. immediate level off of the temp but no decline expected
3. minor increase before an eventual decline
4. major increase without decline for quite some time (may or may not give some degrees of temp such as 2.5 C or greater.
5. off-the-charts warming and disaster.
My point is that the thermostat analogy is useful, but we do not need to bring everyone into the same camp or point of view.
Then we might have some increase in unity, or we acknowledge that we agree to disagree and let each sub-group go its own way.
Thank you for your efforts with this topic.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Jo Co <jonc...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
Hi Ben and all,
I have no time for Michael Mann's view, it's ridiculously short-sighted. I have followed the work of David Wasdell https://www.apollo-gaia.org/ and James Hansen over the past ten years and I watched Hansen move further and further towards David's viewpoint.
There is a massive difference now to everything else that happened in the paleo record from 10,000 years ago through to at least the past 1 million years. This is the only timeframe that really counts because the physical layout of the planet was not that much different from now in continental positioning terms and therefore ocean currents, heat and energy transfer. The difference now is that we have less than half the life on the planet that existed through the above timeframe. Our biosphere is a fully integrated biological process, with evolved climatic management systems that generally speaking work to stabilise conditions within the physical constraints of the Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity and astrological events.
The fact is human impacts have massively degraded natural systems meaning that assumptions that the biosphere will continue to drawdown and sequester carbon at the pre-anthropogenic impact rates are ridiculous. Let alone respond to other shocks like the colossal releases of methane. Natural things in good health are incredibly resilient, when they're stressed and damaged they become vulnerable.
Best estimates for active living carbon now are around 550 gigatons whereas previously they would have been around 1100 gigatons. Interestingly if we restore this i.e. adding 550 gigatons of living carbon that would pull atmospheric CO2 levels down to around 300 ppm. Which given the cooling impact of the Milankovitch cycles, might be enough to return us to some sort of Holocene level of stability. But that will rely upon restoration of a highly diverse and healthy ecosystems.
I contend that we are just as much a part of nature and our acting to stabilise the climate is entirely in line with the evolutionary process. The fact is there is no way that humanity will tolerate the whole of the northern hemisphere being covered in ice sheets means that we will cancel the coming ice age. Stabilising out some of the impacts of the Milankovitch cycles. Our ability to increases planetary temperature has been well proven!
Bru Pearce
E-mail b...@envisionation.org
Skype brupearce
Work +44 20 8144 0431 Mobile +44 7740 854713
Salcombe, Devon, UK
Information contained in this email and any files attached to it is confidential to the intended recipient and may be covered by legal professional privilege. If you receive this email in error, please advise by return email before deleting it; you should not retain the email or disclose its contents to anyone. Envisionation Ltd has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of software viruses, but we recommend that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened. Thank you for your cooperation.
--
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/CAOJO1XYfky-0G6SPw1Zm7XzD%3Dop1PH5Snrn3aV%3DGJ_qRCW%3DD6A%40mail.gmail.com.
Ben,
Are there any “concentrations” or sub-groups within the lack of consensus, such as
1. temp begins to decline soon after Net Zero
2. immediate level off of the temp but no decline expected
3. minor increase before an eventual decline
4. major increase without decline for quite some time (may or may not give some degrees of temp such as 2.5 C or greater.
5. off-the-charts warming and disaster.
My point is that the thermostat analogy is useful, but we do not need to bring everyone into the same camp or point of view.
Then we might have some increase in unity, or we acknowledge that we agree to disagree and let each sub-group go its own way.
Thank you for your efforts with this topic.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Jo Co <jonc...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Stephen Penningroth <steph...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>;
Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Temperature trajectory
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
Hi Bru and Ben and all
I agree with Bru about Michael Mann, and was surprised that Ben seemed to suggest Mann’s Net Zero Commitment theory is contentious within PRAG or HPAC.
I have not seen anyone defend Mann’s view in our discussions. Ben’s thermostat model for global heating makes sense, rebutting Mann’s rejection of committed warming.
I read Zeke Hausfather’s article that Ben kindly shared. It honestly makes no sense to me. He says “zero CO2 emissions likely implied flat future temperatures.” This claim appears to ignore the risk of accelerating feedbacks from multiple interacting tipping points. It also ignores the geological observation that Earth System Equilibrium at expected GHG levels previously occurred at much higher temperature and sea level, setting the planetary thermostat. Most importantly, the net zero commitment concept ignores the strength of economic and political drivers for ongoing emissions. There is a reason IPCC has achieved almost nothing other than talk. Emission reduction is politically unpopular except among those who believe they do not have to bear the cost. Many commentators see no prospect of the scale of economic transformation involved in decarbonising by 2050.
The Net Zero Heating model (attached again) shows the required future forcings for heating to equal cooling, providing a more realistic approach than Net Zero Emissions. It shows how intractable the two watts per square metre of heating from CO2 will remain, and how this massive slug of heat will not just disappear as Mann and IPCC seem to suggest.
On a typographical point, I was surprised Bru to see you mention “astrological events” in your comment. I assume you meant astronomical, unless perhaps you meant today’s movement of Pluto from Capricorn into Aquarius? 😊
Regards, Robert T
--
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/LO0P123MB4218B629151D1090364A42D0B9869%40LO0P123MB4218.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Thanks Robert,
Indeed I meant an astronomical event, by which I was referring to large asteroids passing through our solar system which although they may not hit Earth can cause gravitational disturbance by passing close by. The impact target area for causing such a disturbance is of course very much larger than the actual Earth. Potentially such events are responsible for initiation of or changes to the Milankovitch cycles.
Now a confession, I am very dyslexic and do most of my writing using DragonDictate and I can easily miss it using the wrong word. So if something I have written looks wrong, please take a contextual approach to it.
I'm always delighted and grateful to have mistakes pointed out, so that I can correct them.
Best wishes,
Bru Pearce
E-mail b...@envisionation.org
Skype brupearce
Work +44 20 8144 0431 Mobile +44 7740 854713
Salcombe, Devon, UK
Information contained in this email and any files attached to it is confidential to the intended recipient and may be covered by legal professional privilege. If you receive this email in error, please advise by return email before deleting it; you should not retain the email or disclose its contents to anyone. Envisionation Ltd has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of software viruses, but we recommend that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened. Thank you for your cooperation.
--
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/CA%2BKfrk0e%2BnCdQACsAk%2BCZh7BzssdFsnrms6eMwewy%2BnQ5HhR5w%40mail.gmail.com.
I expected that if tipping points were activated in the Arctic that the curve would start to rise more steeply. I believe the chart showing what would happen if tipping points were NOT activated or “Tipping points activations avoided in the Arctic.”
I think that a single version with a “Colour/Color Key” would be sufficient for most readers.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:27 PM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Temperature trajectory - Comms project (new thread)
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
John,
--
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/1725C9B2-3977-4536-892F-C0A568B98488%40mac.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/1725C9B2-3977-4536-892F-C0A568B98488%40mac.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:07 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
The bit that you've outlined in an orange-brown rectangle is truly shocking: especially saying that global warming is irreversible on a human timescale. The denial of SRM could not be clearer. This omission is criminal, because it commits the world to a high risk of catastrophic climate change and sea level rise.
In fact Arctic tipping points, such as the retreat of sea ice, were activated at 0.5C (around 1980) and could become irreversible, with high risk above 1.5C. We've recently added the latter in our temperature trajectory diagram; see shaded orange area below the brown curves. These curves are consistent with Hansen as far as we could manage.
Note that the time (many decades) and temperature (up to 10C) that the brown curves flatten out is rather immaterial; if there is no SRM we are committed to catastrophic global warming and sea level rise.
Cheers, John
P.S. Doug, the activation of tipping point processes at 0.5C could be shown on the diagram below the blue curve and above the green dashed line at 0.5C (Holocene limit) with a pale blue shaded area and the text "Tipping points activated in the Arctic".
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 11:12 PM Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, and all in PRAG and HPAC,
Firstly, a huge thanks to you Ben for focus. I hope we can stick to the project Ben has outlined below. That is a big "note to self" too.
I've put some [inline comments] below to keep things conversational and to relate them to the approach you're structuring.
In terms of a thermometer, it could be a useful visual (& is used by IPCC) but I think the equilibrium temperature is a long time off.
I like the below visual, from the excellent Royal Society clip in ref (2) below
<image.png>
"If emissions continue unchecked, then further warming of 2.6o-4.8oC would be expected by the end of this century. Even at the low end, this would have serious implications for human societies and the natural world. For more information about climate change from leading scientific academies, please visit …"
Also please see below comment from the Royal Society about planetary cooling. It's almost like a throwaway line, on the basis that there are no cooling options; the punchline is the last sentence.
<image.png>
--
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/CACS_Fxqf3K2es84z%3DDBdNnhrf5D_a%3DdjN5rnw8zBLmL9z%2Bo5jQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/1725C9B2-3977-4536-892F-C0A568B98488%40mac.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB59329C4F51E04FB407275353DB849%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
On Mar 25, 2023, at 9:08 AM, 'Anderson, Paul' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Doug and John,
I agree with the new label (unless something better comes along) for the blue zone showing Arctic refreezing.
I am a retired professor of geography. I have been studying the climate crisis as both physical science and social science, the latter including the lack of response by people and governments to do what is needed now and in future decades.
1. ER: In my opinion, affluent people will not sufficiently clean their lifestyles (emission reduction = ER) to be Net Zero until it is too late and the socio-economic meltdown makes fossil-based products unavailable or a reason for war. The non-affluent people will be sucked along into the destruction.
2. CDR: My specialty is biochar production, a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) contribution that is easy and significant (could be 10 Gt CDR/yr and still be insufficient) and still is ignored. By the time DAC is “feasible at scale” it will not be affordable (my opinion) by a world in crisis. In short, I am doubting the ability of CDR to be sufficient, especially as ER efforts fail to take hold.
3. SRM: So I am gradually (in the past year) coming around to the solar radiation modification (SRM) alternatives. I do not like the concept of stratospheric manipulation. The stratosphere is too far out of reach for human control when something goes wrong (which is eventually certain, according to Murphy’s Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".).
4. AE: If albedo enhancement (AE) is defined as including all forms of SRM, then I do not like that name. Instead, what SEEMS to be discussed here is Arctic freezing or refreezing (is that AF or RF?, which would be confused with afforestation and reforestation). Maybe just AS for Arctic solution??? Or maybe use the word Polar to include South Polar efforts also.
Whatever is the name, the concept of refreezing the Arctic (always with a capital A) is to be attempted at the surface level of the land and ocean and in the troposphere, the atmosphere close to the surface (including cloud layers). THIS has a chance of being successful.
And the graphic with the blue zone is extremely useful to help carry the message.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:04 AM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>
Cc: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Temperature trajectory - Comms project (new thread)
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
John,
Having reflected on Paul’s comment, perhaps the label in the blue shaded area would be clearer as …
Arctic ice
loss and restoration
Doug
This is an screenshot edit on my phone
<image001.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB593232B1E6468CAAFAE41261DB859%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
I expected that if tipping points were activated in the Arctic that the curve would start to rise more steeply. I believe the chart showing what would happen if tipping points were NOT activated or “Tipping points activations avoided in the Arctic.”
I think that a single version with a “Colour/Color Key” would be sufficient for most readers.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:27 PM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Temperature trajectory - Comms project (new thread)
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
John,
--
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/1725C9B2-3977-4536-892F-C0A568B98488%40mac.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/1725C9B2-3977-4536-892F-C0A568B98488%40mac.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:07 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
The bit that you've outlined in an orange-brown rectangle is truly shocking: especially saying that global warming is irreversible on a human timescale. The denial of SRM could not be clearer. This omission is criminal, because it commits the world to a high risk of catastrophic climate change and sea level rise.
In fact Arctic tipping points, such as the retreat of sea ice, were activated at 0.5C (around 1980) and could become irreversible, with high risk above 1.5C. We've recently added the latter in our temperature trajectory diagram; see shaded orange area below the brown curves. These curves are consistent with Hansen as far as we could manage.
Note that the time (many decades) and temperature (up to 10C) that the brown curves flatten out is rather immaterial; if there is no SRM we are committed to catastrophic global warming and sea level rise.
Cheers, John
P.S. Doug, the activation of tipping point processes at 0.5C could be shown on the diagram below the blue curve and above the green dashed line at 0.5C (Holocene limit) with a pale blue shaded area and the text "Tipping points activated in the Arctic".
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 11:12 PM Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben, and all in PRAG and HPAC,
Firstly, a huge thanks to you Ben for focus. I hope we can stick to the project Ben has outlined below. That is a big "note to self" too.
I've put some [inline comments] below to keep things conversational and to relate them to the approach you're structuring.
In terms of a thermometer, it could be a useful visual (& is used by IPCC) but I think the equilibrium temperature is a long time off.
I like the below visual, from the excellent Royal Society clip in ref (2) below
<image.png>
"If emissions continue unchecked, then further warming of 2.6o-4.8oC would be expected by the end of this century. Even at the low end, this would have serious implications for human societies and the natural world. For more information about climate change from leading scientific academies, please visit …"
Also please see below comment from the Royal Society about planetary cooling. It's almost like a throwaway line, on the basis that there are no cooling options; the punchline is the last sentence.
<image.png>
--
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/CACS_Fxqf3K2es84z%3DDBdNnhrf5D_a%3DdjN5rnw8zBLmL9z%2Bo5jQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Doug and John,
I agree with the new label (unless something better comes along) for the blue zone showing Arctic refreezing.
I am a retired professor of geography. I have been studying the climate crisis as both physical science and social science, the latter including the lack of response by people and governments to do what is needed now and in future decades.
1. ER: In my opinion, affluent people will not sufficiently clean their lifestyles (emission reduction = ER) to be Net Zero until it is too late and the socio-economic meltdown makes fossil-based products unavailable or a reason for war. The non-affluent people will be sucked along into the destruction.
2. CDR: My specialty is biochar production, a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) contribution that is easy and significant (could be 10 Gt CDR/yr and still be insufficient) and still is ignored. By the time DAC is “feasible at scale” it will not be affordable (my opinion) by a world in crisis. In short, I am doubting the ability of CDR to be sufficient, especially as ER efforts fail to take hold.
3. SRM: So I am gradually (in the past year) coming around to the solar radiation modification (SRM) alternatives. I do not like the concept of stratospheric manipulation. The stratosphere is too far out of reach for human control when something goes wrong (which is eventually certain, according to Murphy’s Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".).
4. AE: If albedo enhancement (AE) is defined as including all forms of SRM, then I do not like that name. Instead, what SEEMS to be discussed here is Arctic freezing or refreezing (is that AF or RF?, which would be confused with afforestation and reforestation). Maybe just AS for Arctic solution??? Or maybe use the word Polar to include South Polar efforts also.
Whatever is the name, the concept of refreezing the Arctic (always with a capital A) is to be attempted at the surface level of the land and ocean and in the troposphere, the atmosphere close to the surface (including cloud layers). THIS has a chance of being successful.
And the graphic with the blue zone is extremely useful to help carry the message.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:04 AM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>
Cc: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Temperature trajectory - Comms project (new thread)
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
John,
Having reflected on Paul’s comment, perhaps the label in the blue shaded area would be clearer as …
Arctic ice
loss and restoration
Doug
This is an screenshot edit on my phone
Murphy's Law, or Sod's Law as we often call it in the UK, is usually invoked to illustrate the occurrence of something both undesirable and unlikely. But its origins in statistics suggest that what is undesirable and unlikely becomes almost certain after a sufficient number of trials. It always remains undesirable. Translating that to global warming, our repeated failure to do what needs to be done, and has always been well within our capacity to do, sets up a continuous stream of trials making it more or less inevitable that at some point in time some undesirable outcome will ensue.
The beauty of John's graph is that it illustrates vividly the
parameters for a set of undesirable outcomes. Sadly, it offers
almost no insight into what it will take to break out of the deep
trance that has engulfed most of our political class and many
others besides. Picking up on a remark from Paul, the science has
largely done its job - we know enough and although more knowledge
is always welcome, it is not necessary to provoke decisive action
now. However, we're now increasingly confronted by the realm of
social science because it is in there that will be found the
answers, if there are any, as to how we turn our knowledge into
decisive action.
It is also worth noting that decisive action will always, by definition, be timely. However, the action needed at any given moment to qualify as decisive will scale as the challenge scales. And the challenge scales with each repeated failure to act decisively. Therein lies our biggest problem. Decisive action has for some time been daunting and demonstrably too risky for our politicians' careers. That's why they haven't acted decisively and why they will almost certainly continue to fail to act decisively - as the challenge grows, the scale of the decisive action grows but the willingness of the decision makers to make those decisions remains behind the curve.
We need to bring the social sciences to bear on how to break this
doomed cycle of failure.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/426C9A50-0629-423C-AAE1-5C5BB85F54E0%40mac.com.
Hi Paul
Franz Oeste and I are very focused on Arctic Cooling. We have learned a great deal from Stephen Salter in our fortnightly NOAC meetings about MCB. Our patented TOA proposal (Titanium Oxide Aerosol) is designed for dispersal in Arctic regions. TOA is a ‘catch-all’ acronym that encompasses numerous formulation options for different scenarios. It variously can involve other substances such as silicon hydroxide, aluminium chloride and ferric chloride. (We used to talk about TOA-EDARA but have now decided to call everything that isn’t pure Iron Salt Aerosol TOA.)
We expect TOA to:
- Deplete atmospheric methane possibly at 10x the rate of Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA) under the same conditions of sun intensity, methane concentration, humidity etc,
- Be easier and cheaper to disperse than ISA,
- Be dispersible from numerous platforms: land-based, ship-based, and from aircraft above low lying cloud tops and within clouds,
- Protect the ozone layer, enabling it to recover more quickly,
- Remove black carbon aerosol, preventing it from migrating to the Arctic where it otherwise accelerates ice melt rates.
- Form bright white cooling clouds in aeras of high humidity, or form a diffuse reflective haze in in dry air,
- Potentially be suitable for refreezing the Arctic by protecting winter snowfall during summer months,
- Like ISA, get rained out after 1 – 3 weeks, depending on location, altitude, and weather conditions at time of dispersal,
- Be of very low toxicity. The particles will safely flocculate after they get rained out (i.e. get removed, as they stick to other environmental surfaces and gradually transform into tiny flecks of clay),
All these features are good for the climate.
You are welcome to join our fortnightly NOAC meetings (Nature-based Ocean and Atmospheric Cooling). Let me know if you’d like to be added to that group too. Many participants are also members of HPAC and PRAG. Here are the last two NOAC meeting recordings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HucH_GI77Cs&t=801s (Role of black carbon aerosol in Arctic melting; Floating ocean habitat to make fast sinking particles, and other science.) No views because I forgot to include the link in the last invitation! ☹
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPObMAXW70&t=796s (Much watched, lively meeting on SRM policy)
The next NOAC meeting is Monday 3rd April, 1 pm PT. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6920178506?pwd=OXFYVGlYK2x6T3NYV3o5UkRvbFBkUT09
More NOAC info here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UpmRrXrMtOlXEpqEuFS8db_NpFhTpM2_/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114954647783797253223&rtpof=true&sd=true
Clive
From: 'Anderson, Paul' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 25 March 2023 20:14
To: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>; Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [prag] Temperature trajectory - Comms project (new thread)
Doug and all,
Question for Group: How focused are we on Arctic Cooling (AC). Can this group embrace Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)?
To get a good introduction to MCB, I ask Stephen Salter to please send to everyone what he sent only to me. (please confirm to me that you receive these messages that are not addressed specifically to you.)
And can any other Surficial Cooling (SC) or Tropospheric Albedo (TA) technologies be included? I think yes IF the principles are about clouds and ice.
But not include mirrors and floating micro-balls, and other “constructed” surface coverings that can be a different focus group. Not to include whatever other albedo tinkering comes along. Nothing stratospheric at this time. Keep it all close to the surface with clouds and ice. And have a name that includes both AC and MCB and other SC/TA or “ice and clouds” (IC) approaches. 😊 A mess of acronyms, but we do need to identify our interests separate from upper atmosphere approaches of SRM.
Does that divide us or unit us or have no impact? I am not in charge and I do not want to step on the toes of others. Who is or could be in charge?
Also, we will fall apart as a group if we continue with only one Thread/subject line and living off of the good will of Planetary Restoration AND healthy planet action coalition. I am only subscribed to HPAC, so should I join Planetary Restoration? Both are General names that encompass so much that there is risk of loss of focus on SC/TA.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB593224D34885B2F5029414F7DB859%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
Doug and all,
Question for Group: How focused are we on Arctic Cooling (AC). Can this group embrace Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)?
To get a good introduction to MCB, I ask Stephen Salter to please send to everyone what he sent only to me. (please confirm to me that you receive these messages that are not addressed specifically to you.)
And can any other Surficial Cooling (SC) or Tropospheric Albedo (TA) technologies be included? I think yes IF the principles are about clouds and ice.
But not include mirrors and floating micro-balls, and other “constructed” surface coverings that can be a different focus group. Not to include whatever other albedo tinkering comes along. Nothing stratospheric at this time. Keep it all close to the surface with clouds and ice. And have a name that includes both AC and MCB and other SC/TA or “ice and clouds” (IC) approaches. 😊 A mess of acronyms, but we do need to identify our interests separate from upper atmosphere approaches of SRM.
Does that divide us or unit us or have no impact? I am not in charge and I do not want to step on the toes of others. Who is or could be in charge?
Also, we will fall apart as a group if we continue with only one Thread/subject line and living off of the good will of Planetary Restoration AND healthy planet action coalition. I am only subscribed to HPAC, so should I join Planetary Restoration? Both are General names that encompass so much that there is risk of loss of focus on SC/TA.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 9:18 AM
Doug and all,
Question for Group: How focused are we on Arctic Cooling (AC). Can this group embrace Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)?
To get a good introduction to MCB, I ask Stephen Salter to please send to everyone what he sent only to me. (please confirm to me that you receive these messages that are not addressed specifically to you.)
And can any other Surficial Cooling (SC) or Tropospheric Albedo (TA) technologies be included? I think yes IF the principles are about clouds and ice.
But not include mirrors and floating micro-balls, and other “constructed” surface coverings that can be a different focus group. Not to include whatever other albedo tinkering comes along. Nothing stratospheric at this time. Keep it all close to the surface with clouds and ice. And have a name that includes both AC and MCB and other SC/TA or “ice and clouds” (IC) approaches. 😊 A mess of acronyms, but we do need to identify our interests separate from upper atmosphere approaches of SRM.
Does that divide us or unit us or have no impact? I am not in charge and I do not want to step on the toes of others. Who is or could be in charge?
Also, we will fall apart as a group if we continue with only one Thread/subject line and living off of the good will of Planetary Restoration AND healthy planet action coalition. I am only subscribed to HPAC, so should I join Planetary Restoration? Both are General names that encompass so much that there is risk of loss of focus on SC/TA.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 9:18 AM
John
We expect to be able to make TOA particles ~100 nm diameter on average. That’s about the optimum size Stephen says is good for cloud droplet nucleation. We think we can control it by controlling air flow speed and precursor vapour flow rate.
Our bigger challenge may be to make them monodisperse – similar sized. We’ll know if funding is made available for testing.
Clive
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqGUjoKWZ5-2Xd0_bTNT9a7BYgMia0q3L489qzbzQrb9A%40mail.gmail.com.
John,
I have been reading at the Planetary Restoration (PRAG) website, and have sent my email address to be subscribed for PRAG messages.
The PRAG mission statement is quite broad, but I do find the focus to be on Arctic refreezing (what I am seeking.)
The diagram’s text "Tipping points activated in the Arctic" implies about the reasons for the rising global temperature and not about how to cause the decline in temperature that is projected by the graph.
I come from the world of CO2 removal (CDR) where there are physical and financial actions possible by participants: planting trees, making biochar, capturing CO2 mechanically or by enhanced weathering, etc. In contrast, the world of reducing solar radiation (by numerous means mostly relating to reflection) is much more theoretical or perhaps with laboratory or tiny experiments about what might be possible, not what a person can touch or make happen (at least not yet). But the nature-based approaches that are Ice and Clouds (IC) (not chemicals nor physical objects) have an appeal.
So a great part of the Arctic refreezing efforts are about being allowed to do anything, and certainly not to get financial rewards (such as carbon credits). [That was essentially the case with CDR prior to the Paris agreement in 2015.] I am still learning, but it seems that public awareness and political / commercial acceptance of Ice and Clouds efforts is the current battleground.
I look forward to further contact with all.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 5:04 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>
Cc: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; Franz Dietrich Oeste <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>;
Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqGUjoKWZ5-2Xd0_bTNT9a7BYgMia0q3L489qzbzQrb9A%40mail.gmail.com.