UNEP 2/28/2023 Report on SRM

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Apologies if this has already been posted:

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/new-report-explores-issues-around-solar-radiation-modification

I did a quick search and didn't find anything in my inbox.  In any case, it seems important enough to resend just in case!

Best,

Ron

[Clive Elsworth]

In the paper they list SAI, MCB and cirrus cloud thinning.

 

There is no mention of the impact on the oxidative capacity of the troposphere from an SAI intervention.

 

Clive

On 16/03/2023 04:12 GMT DV Henkel-Wallace <dv...@bluedotchange.com> wrote:

 

 

When they say “SRM” do they mean only SAI?  Would they feel less frightened by terrestrial and/or local tropospheric approaches?

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 15, 2023, at 13:42, Rebecca personal em <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good afternoon to you in Chicago Ron, 

 

Thank you for sending, it’s hard to keep up with all the reports and actions people are taking. 

 

Herb did send a link for this report, but it’s worth drawing it to everyone’s attention again. 

 

Unfortunately, it buys right into the net zero story, at least from the executive summary, excerpt below. Perhaps it is part of a strategic picture/plan that we’re not seeing, and also any news is good news?

 

https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903

Quote from Ms Inger Andersen, ED UNEP

<image.png>

Best regards to all , 

Rebecca

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%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/7A5E8F79-1B6E-4577-BD4A-4C22FC41DD22%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/09DA5019-1308-4963-BB64-80C82B98B49C%40bluedotchange.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Rebecca et al.  I agree. Not surprisingly, the UNEP is not going to break ranks with conventional wisdom on this issue. From a quick skim, a couple of "glimmers of progress" might be their support for a "risk risk" evaluation, and for small scale research.

Interestingly the Montreal Protocol report is cited as a supportive backup source in the interview but that report focused on a spring injection of SAI in Antarctica (where the Ozone hole is largest) and found mixed results. After 20 years of SAI loss of ozone in Antarctica in October close to 1990's loss, but less loss if SAI is started later, and for larger applications enhancement of Ozone in NH midlatitudes:

Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in
spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent on
the injection rate and timing. Simulations of strong SAI
show an increase in total column ozone (TCO) in mid-lat-
itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.
º For October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achieve
a global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20
years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ± 20 DU,
assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-
tion brings TCO values close to the observed minimum in
the 1990s. Less ozone loss would be expected for a later
SAI start date, when halogen concentrations are project-
ed to be lower.
º Beyond the first 20 years, the continued application of
strong SAI, to offset almost 5 °C of warming by 2100, re-
duces Antarctic ozone in October by similar amounts (55
± 20 DU) throughout the 21st century despite declining
abundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). In
this case, ozone hole recovery from ODSs is delayed by
between 25 and 50 years. A peakshaving scenario po-
tentially leads to less ozone depletion.
º Under stronger SAI scenarios, ozone is significantly
enhanced in NH mid-latitudes in winter owing to strato-
spheric heating from injected sulfur, which leads to in-
creased equator to poleward transport of ozone.
º Ozone loss within the Arctic polar vortex has not yet
been robustly quantified for SAI.

Best,

Ron

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Rebecca personal em <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good afternoon to you in Chicago Ron, 

Thank you for sending, it’s hard to keep up with all the reports and actions people are taking. 

Herb did send a link for this report, but it’s worth drawing it to everyone’s attention again. 

Unfortunately, it buys right into the net zero story, at least from the executive summary, excerpt below. Perhaps it is part of a strategic picture/plan that we’re not seeing, and also any news is good news?

https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903

Quote from Ms Inger Andersen, ED UNEP

[Robert Chris]

I have commented on this report previously.  In the summary Q&A for which the link is given below, the following extract is key:

Does UNEP think we have lost the battle to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis?

AH: Not at all. First, the scientific assessment of potential hazards that can stem from new technologies is critical to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. Second, it is important people understand that SRM technologies, should they be considered at some point in the future, do not solve the climate crisis because they do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor reverse the impacts of climate change. The world must be crystal clear on this point.

Issues such as ocean acidification, sea level rise, the increasing intensity and frequency of weather events, changes in species distribution and pollution will continue unless they are tackled directly. The evidence is irrefutable: the world can and must act swiftly, decisively, and immediately to reduce emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. UNEP will therefore continue to strengthen its efforts to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste.

This extract illustrates that the premise on which this UNEP report is based is at best questionable, and at worst, simply incorrect.   Until this error is more widely appreciated, it is doubtful that much progress will e made on AE research.  We have a classic Catch 22.  We'll only support AE research if we can be satisfied that it can be done safely, but we can't know that it can be done safely without first doing the research.  Moreover, as I have stressed elsewhere, how do we get sufficient agreement about what is meant by 'safe'.

Regards

Robert

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/CAPhUB9DbvoMUpq4vXXYawayVO7VPN441MbwMZ02813Ja5stmqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H simmens]

What is so breathtakingly illogical If not frank gaslighting is the statement in the first paragraph that SRM does not solve the climate crisis because it doesn’t reduce emissions. 

And yet in the next paragraph, they implicitly acknowledge that emission reductions will not solve the climate crisis as they assert that the world must reduce emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change  with no mention that reducing emissions would solve the climate crisis! 

It’s one thing to come across this up is down and down is up logic while reading a high school student essay, but it’s another coming from the institution responsible for leading the world’s effort to address the climate crisis. 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens

On Mar 17, 2023, at 2:58 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/ea76ff93-2ca5-8e23-00fb-7d3b01b1a2cb%40gmail.com.