Albedo
Robert Tulip
Friends
Here is commentary I have written on current climate policy.
Robert Tulip
Why Increasing Albedo is More Urgent than Cutting Emissions
I have made a YouTube Video – 16 minutes - https://youtu.be/MzZDDjHYAnk - explaining this topic.
The Problem
Cutting emissions and removing greenhouse gases can’t stop climate tipping points
Politics and economics make cutting emissions difficult, expensive and slow.
The world situation is like a canoe headed for a waterfall
Viable cooling technologies lack funds, publicity and political support
The Solution
Reverse the IPCC priority order and put increasing albedo first
A brighter planet can avoid the climate danger zone.
Cooling technologies such as Marine Cloud Brightening are quick, safe and cheap
Fund large scale solar geoengineering research
Governments must cooperate to implement direct cooling measures.
Climate change shows that political psychology in mass movements is primarily mythological. Deniers and decarbonisers form opposing climate tribes with conflicting myths, bifurcating climate policy into two conflicting worldviews. Both denialists and decarbonists are equally guilty of reliance on what President John F. Kennedy called “the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”.
Arctic refreezing must become the top priority for climate policy, through international cooperation between governments to make directly cooling the planet, removing greenhouse gases and cutting emissions three co-equal priorities, as proposed by the Healthy Planet Action Coalition.
Counterpunch magazine published a recent article on this healthy planet vision of climate repair and restoration - Monumental Plans to Fix the Planet, showing how this approach to climate change is gaining an audience.
Three actions – cooling, removing and reducing - can be equal in priority while having different time horizons. The problem with current policy is that emission reduction is marginal to climate stability and security, due to the urgency of the tipping point problem. The likelihood and impact of a dangerous climate phase shift due to Arctic tipping points is an extreme planetary security risk. Warming can only be mitigated if the world community institutes direct immediate measures to increase planetary albedo. This is a challenge to the prevailing political orthodoxy in climate policy, proposing an evolutionary shift in planetary management. Our planet has to reflect more sunlight as a primary public policy priority. As ecological stewards, global humanity must manage and guide and regulate the planetary atmosphere, ocean and temperature toward optimum conditions for the abundant flourishing of life.
Making the three legs of the climate policy stool – cool, remove, reduce - equal in priority would involve a shift of funding from decarbonisation to new cooling technology. That would require new funding for climate policy earmarked to planetary brightening. Once brightening is accepted as a legitimate and central goal of the world climate conversation, the rapid potential, low cost, safety, and security and biodiversity benefits of measures to increase albedo will become obvious.
President Kennedy told Yale University in 1962 that “the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
This description of the role of myth in politics speaks well to climate policy and science, as a political and philosophical insight into psychology, neuroscience and culture. Political psychology in mass movements is primarily mythological in character, due to our neural tribal instincts of loyalty and belonging. As already noted, climate policy is now bifurcated into two conflicting mythological tribes, the denialists and the decarbonists. President Kennedy's description of “the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought” shows the difficulty of scientific policy, the high inertia of politics and society when confronted with calls to change.
Both sides of the climate debate are equally guilty of reliance on beliefs that conflict with evidence. There is an element of lying, but the majority of participants in climate discussion are sincere. However, sincerely held but empirically wrong ideas are a form of fantasy. Denial that climate change is real and dangerous is a fantasy, as is the false belief that emission reduction alone could prevent dangerous climate change. Good faith acceptance of sincerity enables scientific policy conversation based on logic and evidence. We can rise above the tyranny of myth, asking how we can transition from our current destructive planetary trajectory to find a path toward universal flourishing.
An analogy to the climate policy situation comes from Eat Fat Get Thin, a nutrition book where author Dr Mark Hyman challenges the high carbohydrate diet paradigm of the USDA Food Pyramid of 1992 promoted strongly for decades by government dietary authorities. Carbohydrate as main staple food has been questioned over the last thirty years by the view that a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrate delivers better health outcomes, but this scientific discovery has confronted indifference and denial. Meanwhile, the Standard American Diet has produced the obesity epidemic, mainly from sugar, with impacts on cancer, dementia, sloth, heart disease and stroke. The bad health impacts of sugar have been widely ignored, as have the dangers of carbon dioxide and methane for global warming.
Upton Sinclair explained in The Jungle, his study of the Chicago meatworks a century ago, that a man will not accept a fact when his income requires him to deny it. This syndrome applies to the food industry today. Climate policy contains an equivalent level of error. An equivalent paradigm shift is needed in climate as in nutrition. And yet climate policy change faces an equal or greater level of entrenched and intransigent opposition as nutrition – including from many who maintain they support good outcomes. It shows how people’s beliefs that their own views are true and rational can be wrong on a massive scale. We construct social myths, especially when conflict of interest influences the discussion.
The 27th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change needs a paradigm shift, prioritising albedo to make the planet brighter and more reflective, to immediately cool and stabilise the climate.
https://planetaryrestoration.net/
Robert Tulip
Dear Alan
Thank you for your comments and questions. My replies are below in your email.
Robert Tulip
From: Alan Robock ☮ <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 8:55 AM
To: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; arctic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Albedo
Dear Robert,
You assert "Cooling technologies such as Marine Cloud Brightening are quick, safe and cheap." None of these claims is supported by evidence.
Professor Stephen Salter has compiled strong evidence to support these claims. A summary of MCB by Paul Beckwith is here. He expands this at his YouTube Channel with four short talks published last year that provide a good introduction to the science.
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4rVwR0wY-0&t=275s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsYYk8lR_Go
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA79vWAM2Tc
Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Ko60kXk6w&t=770s
Australian research on MCB for the Great Barrier Reef to prevent coral bleaching provides a starting point for broader research on potential use of MCB to increase albedo. My view is that Australia could lead research for the Southern Ocean to use MCB to cool Antarctica, with major climate and biodiversity benefit. Slowing the melt of sea ice would slow glacial melt and cool ocean currents that create atmospheric rivers.
Quick: The technology does not exist, so to even try it is impossible. We don't even know if it would work. And even if it did and we could develop the technology in a decade, it would work on ocean temperatures, which would be slow to respond.
MCB technology has been proposed, and is under research in Australia and through the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University. The Covid vaccine response showed that new technology can be developed quickly. A similar intensive international process could solve technical questions for Marine Cloud Brightening and other solar geoengineering technologies within months or years.
Safe: No evidence for this. There are many potential problems, including impacts on ocean biosphere, and remote impacts, including precipitation reduction over the Amazon.
MCB could mitigate the intensity of hurricanes by cooling the ocean where hurricanes form. The safety benefit of less intense storms is considerable, as is the benefit of re-freezing the poles. Shifting salt from the ocean to the atmosphere through mist expands what occurs naturally. The protective effect of brighter clouds to bring ecosystems back to a cooler state would reduce poleward drift and protect biodiversity. Targeted deployment of MCB to mitigate processes like the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Pacific El Nino cycle could improve precipitation patterns.
Cheap: We don't have any technology, so how can you calculate how much it would cost? And those are just the direct costs. What about all the potential damages?
The current carbon accounting methods fail to engage radiative forcing, which is the primary measure of global warming. MCB and other solar geoengineering technologies would directly cut radiative forcing at low capital and operating cost, and therefore provide a far more efficient cooling mechanism than either cutting emissions or removing greenhouse gases. Albedo is our primary lever to cool the planet, operating far faster and more directly than carbon-based approaches. The potential damage of unchecked climate change far outstrips any that could be caused by brightening the planet. Increasing planetary albedo in fact would reduce climate damage as a primary objective. An albedo focus could mobilise cooling investment from emitters.
Don't you think we need a lot more research so we can quantify these issues?
I really liked David Keith et al’s recent article (attached), and also the article by Doug MacMartin et al. Together with papers like GESAMP, these papers set out useful research agendas. Keith argues the benefits of a research program could be 5000 times its cost. MacMartin says geoengineering could cut temperature rise by 2°C. The problem is that research on the scale needed lacks investment, policy and support.
Robert Tulip
Alan Robock
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/049001d8ce0b%2488a7a580%2499f6f080%24%40yahoo.com.au.
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Daniel, picking up on the diet analogy, I did not mention protein, your focus in your comment, but rather fat.
The counter-intuitive observation in nutrition, comparable to the observation that cutting emissions cannot rapidly cool the planet, is that in general eating fat does not make you fat, according to numerous scientific studies.
Body fat mainly comes from excess sugar and refined carbohydrate, metabolised into fat by the liver and pancreas, not from eating fatty food.
In both cases, cutting fat intake and cutting GHG emissions, we have what Mencken called “a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”
The natural process is more complex than at first thought. Cutting emissions marginally slows the speed of future warming, but fails to address either the committed warming from past emissions, the need to prevent climate tipping points and extreme weather, or the observation that albedo is the most tractable planetary lever to reverse and manage climate change.
Could prioritising albedo also fall foul of Mencken’s warning against clear and simple answers? I don’t think so. Scientific evidence for the potential of solar geoengineering to cool the planet is strong, unlike for decarbonisation.
The situation is that climate policy has drifted on from its original claim that cutting emissions can mitigate climate change without really examining this proposition.
The confusion is aided by the IPCC wrongly defining mitigation as cutting emissions alone, in the popular jargon. As a result, the methods that actually do mitigate climate change, SRM and CDR, have been sidelined, and we are left with no effective tools to mitigate the serious dangers of warming.
It is a bit like how low-fat diets did nothing to slow the obesity epidemic.
Robert Tulip
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Daniel Kieve
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 10:18 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Arctic Methane Google Group <arctic...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Albedo
Thanks Robert. Very insightful. I'd be a bit wary of the diet analogy though.
The modern Western approach where foods are grouped into 'carbs' and 'proteins' is an oversimplification, which suits the narrative of a diet based on processed foods (white flour etc) and overconsumption of meat products. Consumption of excess of either food type is associated with heightened risk of serious / chronic illness.
In fact many of the healthiest natural, unprocessed food items are a combination of protein and carbs...combined with other nutritional attributes (vitamins, fibre etc). Lentils, quinoa, nuts, seeds and certain wholegrains contain substantial amount of both protein and carbohydrate - as do the healthiest diets (eg Mediterranean diet).
For example, red split lentils contain over 25% protein (higher than much meat or eggs), as well as 55% carb - but only 1.5% is sugars, so lentils are a combined protein + complex carbohydrate + fibre source - not an either or food type!
In the same way, HPAC advocates a 'healthy' three pronged approach rather than the narrow, oversimplified, disastrous decarb only (or protein only) narrative!
Best wishes,
Daniel
--
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/049001d8ce0b%2488a7a580%2499f6f080%24%40yahoo.com.au.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/CADtjw38rf0oE%3D0Oamv%2B2tYMj9Y_YoTZ_DvusQR0WZywt_PnRfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Robert Tulip
Jessica
Here is a response I received that contrasts with your idea to increase albedo:
“VERY impressed with your straightforward logic here. I've been a fan of Will Steffen for quite a while, and you explain with clarity why we need a more drastic approach. That said, do you think humanity has the collective ability to do something like this? We couldn't stop a war in Ukraine.”
The point you are missing Jessica is the straightforward logic that urgent action to increase planetary albedo is a matter of global security. Focus on GHGs offers no prospect to limit looming tipping points.
As you suggest, it is important to consider UV and ozone, but these would not be affected by marine cloud brightening.
My correspondent says a ‘straightforward logic’ requires a more drastic approach than the current IPCC endorses. An albedo focus for climate policy is something that would involve drastic change to the current focus on decarbonisation, but could be achieved with less political conflict. Brightening the planet is a goal that could plausibly be readily agreed by governments. Increasing albedo can provide a practical cooling strategy that can take burden off emission reductions alone as the sole current climate response.
In my YouTube presentation linked below I use Will Steffen’s diagram on climate trajectory in the Anthropocene, showing why ‘bending the needle’ sufficiently from business as usual requires an albedo focus for climate policy. I really am not sure why Dr Steffen and so many of his colleagues refuse to accept this in view of the hothouse tipping points they have identified, other than my previously mentioned psychological suggestion of tribal loyalty.
On the question whether ‘humanity has the collective ability to do something like this’ I am sure we do, but it requires new vision. Useful starting points might include the papal encyclical Laudato Si that calls for integration of care for humanity and care for the planet, and also my suggestions that albedo enhancement should be led by major emitters, and that we should replace carbon credits with radiative forcing credits. These go against the grain of the IPCC, but indicate that new thinking and more open dialogue is essential to recognise and address the climate emergency. Tired calls to accelerate decarbonisation are absurd, such as the recent UN/WMO call for seven times greater effort by 2030. Such calls from leaders in the climate debate involve a wilful blindness to the capacity of albedo to become the primary fulcrum for climate policy.
On the Ukraine War, the absence of a viable global climate policy helped create the security vacuum that Putin entered. Working with China, Japan, Korea, Europe, Canada and the US to build an ice canal across the North Pole to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans for trade while refreezing the Arctic Ocean would do far more for Russian security than invading its peaceful neighbours. As well as providing an exit path for Russia from the war, such a cooperative peaceful Arctic Ocean climate restoration project would reverse the melting of permafrost and sea ice that are primary planetary climate security risks.
Robert Tulip
From: 'Jessica Gurevitch' via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 8:21 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Daniel Kieve <dki...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; carbondiox...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Arctic Methane Google Group <arctic...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Albedo
Perhaps we need to consider injecting red lentils into the lower stratosphere? This would certainly increase albedo and would be unlikely to have the negative effects on UV and ozone.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/06cf01d8ce5c%246717dd80%2435479880%24%40rtulip.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/693C39E1-9854-4653-8E4B-856A3765CEC5%40stonybrook.edu.
Robert Chris
Robert
Just to be clear, alongside
albedo modification, the logic for which you explain
eloquently, what precisely are you proposing for the
transition away from fossil fuels? Is that rendered
unnecessary, or is it that it can be undertaken at a more
attenuated pace, and if so, what pace?
Regards
Robert
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/09f201d8cf14%24a40842d0%24ec18c870%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Clive Elsworth
Robert
I doubt you’ll get a precise answer. If you watch Robert Tulip’s YouTube video, he says very clearly that albedo increase should be prioritised. I, and I would say all the scientists who attend our fortnightly NOAC meetings agree with that position.
Clive
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/882f9bff-7c39-e35a-0875-b1fd4d9899a4%40gmail.com.
Anton Alferness
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/882f9bff-7c39-e35a-0875-b1fd4d9899a4%40gmail.com.
Marshall Mermell
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADDS%2B7eEnOT-KT%3DdMkRpNnNv%2Bt%2BPFhEk1fWyZEe-GuTJSGOznA%40mail.gmail.com.
Cell: 845.222.5048
Robert Tulip
Hi Robert
What about cutting emissions? Emission reduction should be an equal climate priority with direct climate cooling and greenhouse gas removal, while recognising that emission reduction is the smallest and probably most expensive and difficult of the three in its overall contribution to climate stability. Emission reduction is more to be justified on price and environment considerations than because of its contribution to cooling the planet, when considered on an equal radiative forcing cost basis.
My view is that in the near term cutting emissions can make no difference to climate change. 673 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) have been emitted over industrial times, increasing by about 11 GtC per year or 21,000 tonnes per minute, to which we must add methane and other warming factors. Massive decarbonisation effort might slow the annual increase by one or two GtC, but this is marginal (<0.5%) to our worsening radiative forcing and climate security situation. Cutting emissions is also politically challenging, with Paris pledges on track for an overall increase of the annual emission rate by 2030.
The world can do far more to cut radiative forcing by increasing albedo and removing greenhouse gases than by cutting emissions. In my view the best form of GGR will be to convert CO2 into biomass via photosynthesis at sea, but that could take decades to achieve multi Gt scale. In the meantime, a main focus on albedo management can keep temperature from getting out of hand. A main reliance on ramping up CDR over the coming decades, even if emissions remain large, is the only way to create the trajectory for net negative emissions, further increasing removals eventually to a level far exceeding emissions, enabling a return toward stable Holocene climate conditions and sea level.
Thanks for the question.
Robert
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2022 12:37 AM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: [geo] RE: Albedo
Robert
Robert Chris
Hi Robert
Thanks for that clarification. A couple of further questions.
I understand that in relative terms albedo
management could be much cheaper than emissions abatement in
terms of cost per unit of temperature reduction, but at global
scale it'll still be a substantial amount in absolute terms.
Moreover, it is a continuing cost because the delivery of albedo
management has to be constantly refreshed. Where does the money
come from to pay for this on a reliable long-term basis? Is it
funded by governments from taxation or do you contemplate some
kind of novel market mechanism that would generate revenues to
cover its cost? Or perhaps some other funding source?
As I understand the physics, in the absence of a corresponding reduction in atmospheric GHG concentration, the latent heat abated by the albedo management would return to the climate system within a couple of decades in the event of the albedo management stopping. For example, if over time the reduction in forcing had delivered, say 2degC of cooling, the climate system would very rapidly warm by that amount if the albedo management were discontinued. That could obviously be catastrophic. If that's correct, is there some level of risk associated with this so-called 'termination problem' that you consider would be unacceptable and should therefore limit the amount of albedo management that's undertaken?
Finally, is ocean acidification a matter of
concern?
Regards
Robert
Robert Tulip
Thanks again Robert
Climate policy should be understood in the framework of military security, using cooperation to repair and restore the climate as a primary path toward world peace and prosperity, with the goal of a beneficial climate as the underlying strategic basis of national and international security and stability.
Ongoing management of planetary homeostasis is a fundamental requirement for humanity to sustain a durable global civilization, as much as any cooperation under international law that aims to deliver cohesive and predictable economic and social and ecological outcomes.
Against annual military spending in the trillions, restoring and maintaining global homeostasis is a minimal cost with immense direct and indirect benefits and manageable risks.
My view is that action to stabilise the climate should be funded by changing the climate accounting system of carbon credits into a system of radiative forcing credits for purchase by emitters. This will fund immediate research and development of albedo technology and the slower development of methods to remove GHGs.
Over time, as albedo and temperature and the whole biosphere return toward pre-industrial conditions, the need to manage solar radiation will change from restoration into a maintenance approach.
Regards
Robert Tulip
Greg Rau
On Sep 23, 2022, at 9:30 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/103a01d8cfb5%243a9d30c0%24afd79240%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Robert Chris
Hi Greg
Robert Tulip is presenting a
case for promoting albedo management in preference to CDR on
the grounds that albedo management has a significantly better
chance 'to save the world' than CDR. He is not a lone voice with
this view.
Is that not something that should concern the CDR community?
(I'm not sure where the diet
stuff comes in.)
Regards
Robert
Robert Tulip
Greg and Robert
Greg, the relevance to CDR of a discussion about albedo is about how CDR fits into the critical path for climate restoration. Planetary homeostasis requires CDR, but CDR alone cannot restore earth system equilibrium in view of high sensitivity to emissions and fast and slow feedbacks. The time CDR will take to deploy at scale is decades, too long to prevent climate instability. Higher albedo for immediate cooling is needed to protect the climate while CDR ramps up. CDR alone or together with emission reduction is too slow to stop tipping points, but could keep the climate stable once scaled up. Albedo is a more tractable and safer climate lever than carbon.
Robert, where diet came in is an analogy I drew between cutting emissions and the failed low-fat dietary theory. Not wanting to labour the point, when authorities can get something so spectacularly wrong for nutrition, with major health impact, it models a social process for how climate policy may also plausibly be mistaken. Notably, the dominant consensus view that there is no need for immediate planetary brightening is challenged by evidence about tipping points.
If CDR experts did more to advocate for solar radiation management as a necessary precursor, they would help change the terrain of political debate to one more hospitable to action to stabilise and repair the climate.
Thanks & Regards
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Compadres,
The concept that CDR alone cannot restore Earth systems equilibrium is a construct of the scenario bias in climate science. Of the 1,202 scenarios reviewed and summarized in the AR6, none are restoration, 97 are 1.5 C, 133 are 1.5 C with high overshoot, 311 are 2 C with a 67% chance, 159 are 2 C with a 50% chance, and 212 are 2.5 C or greater.
Because of this scenario bias, the concept that CDR alone cannot
restore Earth's climate is false, as is the concept that CDR and
net zero cannot. The reason is because there are no restoration
scenarios to where Earth's temperature is restored to within the
evolutionary boundaries of her systems at somewhere between 0.5
and 1 C, or our old climate's natural variability.
The time to deployment is also biased by the scenarios of climate science. All scenarios assume a CDR deployment rate. If there are no restoration scenarios, a deployment rate for CDR for restoration is not known in the summary consensus of climate science scenario findings.
The concept that consensus scenarios cannot stop tipping,
likewise is false. Most tipping collapses can be stabilized or can
self-restore if the perturbation that caused the collapse is
removed before the point of no return where the collapse becomes
irreversible. Hansen was one of the first to state this obvious
collapse relationship in his 2018 "Target atmospheric CO2, Where
should humanity aim?"
The following quote is from Hansen 2008, long before it became obvious that half of known tipping systems are now active, "Realization that we must reduce the current CO2 amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted." (30) (Reference 30 is below, from my recent article on Truthout.org, unabridged on ClimateDiscovery.org.)
Only a few tipping responses have passed the point of no return. We will not get sea level rise or melted permafrost back for instance. But ice sheet collapse can stabilize if we remove the ocean warming perturbation by mid-century (Feldmann and Levermann 2015), and permafrost collapse can stabilize if we restore to less than 0.5 C warming. (Randers and Goluke 2020)
Cheers,
B
30) Hansen et al., Target Atmospheric CO2 Where Should Humanity
Aim?, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, November 2008.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/039901d8d0d4%243ea1b9a0%24bbe52ce0%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Bruce Parker
Perhaps what is needed is to come to a general agreement on the following:
1. The maximum temperature increases in 2040 and 2050 (and 2100?) that will either (1) limit emissions from known tipping points to some agreed upon level and/or (2) insure the desired restoration levels can be attained (i.e., what are our possible goals?)
2. Net-CO2 emissions pathways that will limit the temperature increases agreed to in #1 above
3. Expected CO2 emissions through 2050 (perhaps several scenarios, e.g., “net zero in 2050”, “Climate Action Tracker’s” “Optimistic” scenario, etc.)
4. CO2 to be removed by CCS by year through 2050 (or 2100)
5. CO2 to be removed by land use by year through 2050 (or 2100)
6. Based on 3, 4,and 5, calculate CDR needed to reach the pathways specified in #2 above
For example, the attached figure shows net-CO2 and CO2 removal amounts for eight model runs from the IPCC 1.5°C report data that had a 2050 temperature increase around 1.75°C (see list below - none used DAC).
I assume that we could find a “climate modeler” who could create sample net-CO2 emissions pathways to meet the targets specified in #1 above (based on expected emissions through 2023 or 2024).
I’d be glad to then “layer in” various values for 3, 4,and 5 above and then calculate the CDR requirement.
I could probably factor in methane emission reductions if I knew what methane emissions the modeler used
I could probably also factor in various amounts of SRM
We could then have discussions how fast the needed CDR can be deployed, if SRM might be needed, etc.
Bruce Parker
Model | Scenario |
AIM/CGE 2.0 | SFCM_SSP2_combined_2Degree |
AIM/CGE 2.0 | SFCM_SSP2_EEEI_2Degree |
MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.0 | EMF33_Med2C_none |
POLES EMF33 | EMF33_Med2C_full |
POLES EMF33 | EMF33_Med2C_nofuel |
REMIND 1.7 | CEMICS-2.0-CDR8 |
WITCH-GLOBIOM 4.2 | ADVANCE_2020_Med2C |
WITCH-GLOBIOM 4.2 | ADVANCE_2030_Price1.5C |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/56669362-6a46-b570-5a58-129128788b33%40earthlink.net.
Robert Tulip
Bruce and Bruce, thanks, this is good.
Bruce Parker – Your suggestion to “factor in various amounts of SRM” to the areas of general agreement you propose is essential, and likely to have a bigger impact on temperature than the range of emission scenarios.
The IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways could be usefully compared to Representative Albedo Pathways, if these could be developed.
I suspect this comparison would show albedo can be modified far more easily, quickly, safely and cheaply than the GHG level. It would produce an optimal range of deployment speeds needed for both albedo increase and GHG removal. The key safety element of albedo enhancement is in avoided risk, reducing the likelihood and effect of expected severe impacts.
The worry about a prime reliance on GHG removal and emission reduction to do the work of climate response is that earth system sensitivity and fragility could produce large unpredicted changes quite quickly. We are already seeing climate disruption with Arctic amplification contributing to extreme weather across the Northern Hemisphere. Only urgent SRM can reduce imbalances such as the effect of Arctic warming on the path of the jet stream.
SRM is insurance against immediate climate risk, providing breathing space alongside work to remove GHGs.
Bruce Melton – You say “The concept that CDR alone cannot restore Earth systems equilibrium is a construct of the scenario bias in climate science.” That is not right. “CDR alone” means that efforts to brighten the planet with solar radiation management are set at zero. This seems to be the assumption in AR6, where CDR is factored into emission pathways - “The scenarios are the result of complex calculations that depend on how quickly humans curb greenhouse gas emissions… Each scenario is labelled to identify both the emissions level and the so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, or SSP, used in those calculations.”
CDR without SRM exposes the world to climate risk. IPCC scenarios assume only differing pathways for emissions/CDR and socioeconomic conditions, excluding any deliberate measures to vary albedo. This omission of SRM from IPCC scenarios is a political rather than scientific decision, given that changing planetary brightness would have a bigger and faster temperature effect than changing the GHG level.
The problem with CDR alone, omitting SRM but in coordination with emission reduction, is that the momentum of climate change is steadily increasing, meaning the scale of risk, and of the required repair, grows bigger the longer we delay the start of measures to brighten the planet.
MacMartin et al suggest the opposite of your view that “there are no restoration scenarios to where Earth's temperature is restored to within the evolutionary boundaries of her systems at somewhere between 0.5 and 1 C, or our old climate's natural variability.” Their scenarios include this low temperature target by relying solely on SRM. The possibility of these more rapid and effective scenarios with SRM is ignored by the IPCC consensus that only extreme emission cuts and CDR can limit warming.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Bruce Parker
Sent: Monday, 26 September 2022 9:34 AM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [CDR] RE: Albedo
Perhaps what is needed is to come to a general agreement on the following:
- The maximum temperature increases in 2040 and 2050 (and 2100?) that will either (1) limit emissions from known tipping points to some agreed upon level and/or (2) insure the desired restoration levels can be attained (i.e., what are our possible goals?)
- Net-CO2 emissions pathways that will limit the temperature increases agreed to in #1 above
- Expected CO2 emissions through 2050 (perhaps several scenarios, e.g., “net zero in 2050”, “Climate Action Tracker’s” “Optimistic” scenario, etc.)
- CO2 to be removed by CCS by year through 2050 (or 2100)
- CO2 to be removed by land use by year through 2050 (or 2100)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/00f901d8d137%2441368c50%24c3a3a4f0%24%40chesdata.com.
Robert Chris
Hi Robert
You say 'CDR without SRM exposes the world to climate
risk'. This may be so. However, the prior question is the
extent to which all the risks associated with climate change
and the various CDR and SRM responses to it, can be reduced by
accelerating the retirement of fossil fuels. Heavy reliance
on geoengineering techniques of whatever nature is predicated
on a failure to transition away from fossil fuels at the
necessary pace. If we can scale CDR and SRM technologies at the speed they'd be
needed to deliver our climate goals, wouldn't that suggest
that, given the will, we could avoid much of the risk
associated with them by using our money and wit to replace
fossil fuels with zero and ultra-low energy fuels at a similar
pace. What a fabulous opportunity this would be for the
fossil fuel sector to deploy its extraordinary engineering
skills to reinvent their businesses for the future.
Perhaps they should take a hint from King Cnut (no typo), the 11th century king of England, who ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, "You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master." But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws." (courtesy of Wikipedia)
The sooner the O&G sector
fully embraces its need to transition, the lower will be the
risk of its collapse taking the rest of us with it.
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/01db01d8d170%240de0ac80%2429a20580%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Robert Chris
Doug
Indeed! Great comments. I'm
not holding my breath either. My own perspective on all this
comes from a complex adaptive systems view. That suggests to
me that things are going to get worse, a lot worse, before
they get better. Maybe my two year old granddaughter who so
far knows nothing but joy and love will survive through to
those better times. But then maybe not. The helicopter view
is that collapse is a necessary precursor to renewal once the
system has lost the capacity to adapt to its changing
circumstances. And we think we're so clever! (irony alert)
Regards
Robert
Robert C et al,
There was a time when I argued the case that Rex Tillerson should reinvent ExxonMobil as an "energy company" as you suggest:
What a fabulous opportunity this would be for the fossil fuel sector to deploy its extraordinary engineering skills to reinvent their businesses for the future.
and
The sooner the O&G sector fully embraces its need to transition, the lower will be the risk of its collapse taking the rest of us with it.
I concluded back in 2014 that the mantra within the industry was Grow or Die. Please refer to my email to Rex Tillerson: Ground Zero – This is What We Know, Technology, Grow or Die (Bit.ly/Ground0_GrowOrDie30Oct14) also published here Bit.ly/ISSUU_GROUND_0
In September and October of 2014, I set out to draft a “factual brief” at the suggestion of Nebraska Sierra Club then-president and attorney Ken Winston. During over a month of daily research and documenting what I learned in daily emails to Rex Tillerson, I came across this E&E News article:Why the oil majors are backing away from renewable energy
BY:,|
This is was my main take-away:
Redlinger addressed a question that occurs to many when they think of the oil companies and renewable energy. The oil majors are better than anyone at energy. Solar, wind and geothermal power are all energy. So what's the problem?
What the oil companies do, Redlinger said, is one part exploration -- geology, geophysics, computer simulation of oil reserves, drilling and heavy earthwork. The other part is chemical engineering, massaging chemical bonds with treatment and heat to convert crude into usable fuels like diesel and gasoline.
What solar and other electricity-generation business do, by contrast, is electronics engineering and manufacturing. "The electrons business is just not core to what the oil majors do."
"It's not that the oil companies can't get good at it," he said. "They're very, very talented and have very good personnel. The question they have to ask themselves is why. If you have a business model that is profitable, and will remain profitable for 20 or 30 years, and that takes all your resources to remain profitable, why change it?"
Also, the Governors’ Wind & Solar Energy Coalition interviewed David Ferris a few days later …
https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/energywires-ferris-talks-big-oils-departure-from-renewable-energy-investments/EnergyWire’s Ferris talks Big Oil’s departure from renewable energy investments
Source: By Monica Trauzzi, E&E • Posted: Monday, October 6, 2014
This is one key extract:
Monica Trauzzi: Are there other reasons why renewables aren’t the right fit right now?
David Ferris: Well, it’s interesting. I had talked to Robert Redlinger, who used to run the solar program for Chevron back in the mid-2000s, and I asked him: “Why is this? So you have these energy companies that are the best at energy. They know it backward and forward. And then you have solar and wind and geothermal energy, and why is it that they can’t get together? Why is it that this seems to be a pairing that just doesn’t work?” And he had some interesting answers for me.
One is that the way that renewable energy and projects and electricity projects, in general, are financed are unfamiliar to the oil majors. They’re used to spending a ton of their own money on very risky projects and taking out all the risk for themselves, and other big infrastructure projects are used to taking on lots of debt, and that’s not something that oil majors are comfortable with. They — and also, the relationship with utilities is one that’s sort of stuck in the craw of the Big Oil companies because they’re used to being the alpha dog in the room and dealing their deals, but when they’re dealing with utility, they’re a monopoly, and so they’re in an inferior bargaining position. And finally, it’s that the — what the oil companies do has to do with molecules. They pump them out of the ground, they use chemical process to refine them. What the solar and wind and geothermal industries do is electrons, and that’s electrical engineering, which is not an area that the oil majors are really all that good at.
If there is evidence that this has changed, I would certainly like to be updated …
In the mean time, I am not holding my breath.
My current thinking which I have been advocating to Senators Murkowski and Manchin as Chair and Ranking Member as well as all other members of te Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is that, short of nationalizing the oil & gas industry — although that is certainly an option — Congress subpoena CEOs of of U.S. majors (as well as foreign companies operating on U.S lands, territories and offshore) to testify and submit their most responsible and expedient strategic plans to wind down production and refining of all crude, gas and condensates, then require them to implement a coordinated industry plan approved and monitored by an independent commission with legal enforcement mechanisms. Such legislation would be worthy of the title W.E.C.A.R.E. — World Energy Crisis Aversion & Readiness Endgame which I explained in my submittal (pp 15-16) to the White House Office of Science and Technology and U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) "Call for Input on a Five-Year Plan for Research on Climate Intervention”:
Perhaps the idea will get some traction within the USGCRP Decadal Strategic Plan, 2022–2031.
Best regards,Doug Grandt
<image001.png>
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADtjw38rf0oE%3D0Oamv%2B2tYMj9Y_YoTZ_DvusQR0WZywt_PnRfg%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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/06cf01d8ce5c%246717dd80%2435479880%24%40rtulip.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/72048c55-34b2-3269-80d6-1ee3b5311c17%40gmail.com.
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Hola Robert,
The concept with the scenario bias is that IPCC does not review restoration scenarios. Therefor they have no knowledge to depart on how to achieve restoration. Their lowest temperature scenario group is 1.5 C. If collapsing Earth system cannot restore themselves unless the warming perturbation is removed, how can we keep Earth systems from collapsing with a 1.5 C target when Earth systems collapses are now active?
Once scenario not included in IPCC is a CDR alone scenario. There is no scientific rationale that we must stop, reduce or even that we cannot increase climate pollution emissions -- only that we must maintain Earth's temperature at a safe level. Therefor CDR alone, one country alone, one technology alone, if deployed fast enough at an appropriate scale, could lower CO2 back to 280 ppm. (Of course we must included other climate pollutants and forcing mechanisms but my point remains.)
So if the scenario is not included in IPCC, the vast majority of
science is ignorant of the possibilities with scenarios other than
those of 1.5 C or greater that IPCC reviews and summarizes. This
includes any scenario as you suggest, "CDR
without SRM exposes the world to climate risk." There were over
2,000 scenarios IPCC reviewed but did not include in their
reports because they did not meet their criteria.
This includes albedo management, solar radiation management,
ocean strategies, gigatons of science that is not (yet) included
in the key statements of IPCC upon which our climate policy is
based.
On SRM, and IPCC; they have deeply considered SRM and found the
risks and unknowns are too great to include in their key
statements other than caveats about their unknowns and risks. Your
interpretation that this is political is well, it's far more
science than politics, unless you call politics risk evaluation:
IPCC evaluates geoengineering strategies based on their perception
of risk where additional warming is acceptable. If they had a
lower threshold of risk, where they understood tipping was active
which requires a greater effort to avoid high risk futures, then
yes they could evaluate geoengineering in a different light.
Once IPCC realizes that irreversible tipping has been activated,
their risk/priorities will change so that irreversibleness can be
avoided through a restoration target (or emergency geoengineering
cooling AND a restoration target.) Realizing irreversible tipping
is now active is the challenge: IPCC is a reticent, compromising
consensus that by definition is 7 years behind the day their
reports are published. (And yes I realize their findings cut off
date is 12 months +/- before their first report of each cycle is
published, but the reporting period of 7 (ish) years means IPCC
gives weight to findings from the very beginning of the period.
Seven years is a long time when a climate is changing abruptly. )
Cheers,
B
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/01db01d8d170%240de0ac80%2429a20580%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Robert Tulip
Thanks Robert, here are some comments in response.
RC: You say 'CDR without SRM exposes the world to climate risk'. This may be so.
- Not brightening the planet is giving in to climate change. With no SRM, the scenario of high CDR and emission reduction leaves the planet wide open to polar warming, a key accelerating driver of climate change that cannot be mitigated fast enough by GHG removal. Direct cooling is needed to refreeze the sea ice and cool the polar regions. Arctic methane release could not be slowed enough by CDR before it grows to rival anthropogenic warming impacts.
RC: However, the prior question is the extent to which all the risks associated with climate change and the various CDR and SRM responses to it, can be reduced by accelerating the retirement of fossil fuels.
- Accelerating the retirement of fossil fuels faces such massive barriers that it is not politically feasible, in fact much less feasible than changing global climate politics to support SRM and CDR. Arctic Amplification is a climate risk that decarbonization and GGR will not mitigate fast enough. Retiring fossil fuels is too small, slow, expensive and contested to be a realistic and effective primary climate response strategy.
RC: Heavy reliance on geoengineering techniques of whatever nature is predicated on a failure to transition away from fossil fuels at the necessary pace.
- Energy transition alone cannot possibly prevent dangerous climate change. Achieving the necessary pace of emission reduction to stabilize the climate is intrinsically impossible, apart from being impractical. A carbon focus leaves out the albedo components of the climate equation, such as keeping the cryosphere frozen. Public resistance to higher energy costs makes faster emission reduction unpopular. It would be better to accept that emissions will continue much as expected while putting the climate effort into SRM and GGR. That policy would motivate emitters to help with geoengineering.
RC: If we can scale CDR and SRM technologies at the speed they'd be needed to deliver our climate goals, wouldn't that suggest that, given the will, we could avoid much of the risk associated with them by using our money and wit to replace fossil fuels with zero and ultra-low energy fuels at a similar pace.
- No, that does not follow. Fuel replacement simply does not address major climate threats, like changes to ocean currents, or increasing extreme weather, or the effect of warming on biodiversity, or melting of the poles. These can all be mitigated by brightening the planet. Decarbonisation is not a replacement for action to increase albedo and remove excess GHGs.
RC: What a fabulous opportunity this would be for the fossil fuel sector to deploy its extraordinary engineering skills to reinvent their businesses for the future.
- Even better than an energy transition, the fossil fuel sector could use its skills and money and contacts to increase planetary albedo, immediately cutting the risk of dangerous climate phase shift. They could also work more on transforming CO2 into useful commodities. Albedo increase has order of magnitude superiority to emission reduction and CDR in cost of impact on radiative forcing. Higher albedo from a brighter planet is needed while GHGs are gradually removed.
RC: Perhaps they should take a hint from King Cnut (no typo), the 11th century king of England, who ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, "You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master." But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws." (courtesy of Wikipedia)
- The popular myth of King Canute is that he wrongly thought he could control the tide by royal command. The geoengineering situation is quite different. It is perfectly possible to slow sea level rise and reduce extreme weather by refreezing the poles. What is lacking is political will.
RC: The sooner the O&G sector fully embraces its need to transition, the lower will be the risk of its collapse taking the rest of us with it.
- The transition goal should be to promote ecological sustainability with the mode of business most able to ensure global civilization will continue and prosper in a changing climate. Stabilising the climate is the most immediate challenge, followed by large scale conversion of CO2 into useful products. The fossil fuel sector can improve its public support by funding action on albedo and GGR. Renewable energy has little potential cooling effect compared to albedo increase and large scale GHG conversion.
Regards, Robert Tulip
Michael Hayes
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ac8d444d-b6e5-a797-e812-e1d8867214c1%40gmail.com.
Clive Elsworth
Another group people might want to discuss Earth albedo is the NOAC-meetings google group (Nature-based Ocean and Atmospheric Cooling) which I moderate.
Anyone: Let me know if you’d like to be added.
You will get a fortnightly invite and reminder to our fortnightly Monday meetings.
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: 28 September 2022 02:52
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: Albedo
Robert,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1c5wrWJA9oEjDAPU_Da-gs43oAut3qNrmzSwQM%2Bkgagrg%40mail.gmail.com.
Robert Tulip
Michael
You said “Albedo/SRM related science and technology has nothing to do with CDR science and tech, policy or economics, that I know of.” I strongly question that.
CDR policy is about how to cool the planet. The whole point of CDR is to augment emission reduction with more efficient and effective methods to slow and reverse global warming. The problem with a CDR policy that completely ignore albedo is that it will not work. The IPCC is the main case in point of this pursuit of an unworkable policy. Tipping points will come too fast, hard and big before GHG removal can be effective, with risk of irreversibility, or making the problem far bigger than it needs to be. The only thing that will prevent and mitigate tipping points such as Arctic methane in the near term is action to increase albedo. Therefore CDR policy needs to be integrated with albedo policy in order to achieve CDR goals.
On science, a number of effective CDR methods, notably related to marine algae, also increase albedo (eg ehux, Iron Salt Aerosol for Dimethyl Sulphide). This whitening effect is an essential part of the overall cooling effect of these methods, and makes these methods far more effective overall than if they did not increase albedo. The albedo effect has to be integrated into assessment of cooling impact.
On CDR economics, it is wrong to suggest that a case that completely ignores its major market competition can be sound. Given that increasing albedo can cool the planet at a fraction of the price of CDR, there is a ‘Kodak moment’ here for those who would propose a CDR policy not integrated with albedo.
All this means it is essential to integrate albedo into CDR policy, recognising the immediate need for cooling by brightening the planet alongside the medium term need for CDR to stabilise the climate and address problems like acidification. Pursuing CDR cannot be a substitute for increasing albedo.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:52 AM
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: Albedo
Robert,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1c5wrWJA9oEjDAPU_Da-gs43oAut3qNrmzSwQM%2Bkgagrg%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Hayes
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/13c401d8d600%24c6d1c550%2454754ff0%24%40yahoo.com.au.