Why increasing albedo is more urgent than cutting emissions
rob...@rtulip.net
I have made a YouTube Video – 16 minutes - https://youtu.be/MzZDDjHYAnk - including the diagrams I recently shared with several meetings.
Comments welcome. Slides attached.
Robert Tulip
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.
kevin lister
Hi Robert,
I saw it on Facebook and have just watched it.
Yes, Albedo needs to the first priority. Totally agree.
But we cannot lose the focus on cutting CO2 emissions. This is set to substantially increase and be limited only by the maximum rate at we can dig fossil fuels out of the ground. With the exponential growth of energy that it is reasonable to anticipate in the next 20 years, we could double the global warming impact from CO2 in the next 25-30 years. All nations are backing away from CO2 reduction commitments that were made as recently as in the last COP. In the UK we are replacing one prime minister that was hopeless on the issue with another that will be even more hopeless. In an exponentially growing world, what is about to happen is as important as what has happened, and there is nothing on the near short term horizon that suggests anything other than significantly increased emissions as the outcome.
I hope that if we go down the albedo route it is done with the clear caveat that it has a limited time of effectiveness before its will be overwhelmed by continuing CO2 emissions. It will already be difficult enough to get the global temperature rise to within 0.5degC of baseline with current CO2 loading in the atmosphere, and nearly impossible with double this.
It is also important that we consider the SRM approaches must be sustainable for the ultra long term, i.e. at least a hundred thousand years.
I’ll be doing a Zoom talk on the 14th October on “What do we say to the kids” which will explore some of the factors that are driving this prognosis.
Kevin
Sent from Mail for Windows
--
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/009001d8accd%24bc219420%243464bc60%24%40rtulip.net.
Robert Tulip
Good points Kevin. Shows how very far the IPCC orthodoxy is from a realistic climate strategy. Good policy has to start with action that can actually mitigate climate change - brightening the planet - as a basis to then ramp up CO2 conversion over coming decades. Given your points about the momentum to move as much carbon from the crust to the air as fast as possible, it has to be accepted that the only feasible critical path has SRM and CDR substituting for emission reduction. Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9914C044-DF54-4074-91E3-DBDF04F41FB7%40hxcore.ol.