Who should debate in support of SRM?
H simmens
 | |
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
Luke Iseman
Robert “SputnikWranglerVtoroi” Kennedy
Michael MacCracken
Well, very interesting. With the warming rate
being of order 0.25 C per decade, if the proposed small approach
proposed here, one would need 2.5 times this to basically offset
the present warming rate, which would seem quite plausible and
be more like my preference--in any case, considering
variability, it will be hard in any year to be precise.
Two comments generally:
1. He talks as if this would all be done in the NH--to moderate impacts in low latitudes, one would want to do this in both hemispheres.
2. There is one sentence I think merits a few comments it being "At the same time, the magnitude of the cooling would be small enough that its effects on climate, on a national or regional scale, would be very difficult to detect in the face of normal variability." Modeling by Elizabeth Barnes for ARPA seemed to indicate that the first weather-related alteration would be to stat suppressing the hydrologic cycle and so extreme rains, which seems logical given that the hydrological cycle is generally dependent on the energy available to evaporate moisture from the ocean (and land) and that would be decreased by the injected sulfate, though it might be more effective if the sulfate were over lower latitude areas where most of the evaporation occurs. The hydrologic impacts of global warming are likely the aspect of the weather that would be of most benefit, so encouraging that aspect is worth of consideration.
Overall, I was glad to see the article talking about more that some large, sudden, imposition of intervention--a type of change that would seem more politically palatable.
Best, Mike
David Keith just posted on X that a number of forums are considering sponsoring debates on SRM and is soliciting names to represent the pro SRM position.
--
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/00BDAB22-8AEA-4B71-B897-2F5C1C7CF4AA%40gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
The Overshoot Commission dialogue on SRM - Solar Radiation Modification in the United States: A Discussion - is available at https://youtu.be/aM6B9AUrPR4?t=780
The timestamp is to the comment by Ted Parson, UCLA Law Professor. Ted’s bio is at https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/edward-parson/
Professor Parson discussed modelling of stratospheric aerosol injection at [15:50]. He said:
“model studies have been done looking at what SRM would do placed on top of some projected climate change scenario. There's been about 100 studies done. The results are shockingly strongly favorable even in many cases where the researchers went into the study trying to find a way to break it and show that it couldn't possibly work. The broad results of those model studies which require making assumptions about how SRM is used are that it looks like it can reduce greenhouse gas driven climate change almost everywhere in the world. The model studies show maybe 1 to 2% of the surface area of the world where an SRM intervention actually takes the climate the wrong way.”
He goes on to say the main risk is in governance. Ted’s comments from the transcript are as follows:
Ted I'm going to turn to you now. You were 13:06 an advisor to the commission and in that you spoke to us about why you 13:11 thought it was important to proceed with focusing on SRM and where you thought 13:17 there was potential. I'd like you to talk about that but also talk about what you think the risks associated with it 13:23 are and how best to advance the research agenda that both looks at 13:30 both parts of the risk equation thank you.
Francis thanks for the invitation today and thank 13:37 you for your leadership and contribution on the commission. I'm a professor at the UCLA law school and I'm 13:43 also the faculty director of the Emmett Institute on climate change in the environment where we do a bunch of legal 13:49 and policy and Regulatory work across all elements of climate change mitigation adaptation CDR at the State 13:56 national and international level. We also have a project here on the governance of solar geoengineering or 14:01 SRM that I've led for about seven years. It's important to start the 14:07 answer by saying SRM cannot fully reduce the effects of greenhouse gas driven climate change. That is an 14:12 intrinsic limitation that applies to any method that's been investigated. The best that could possibly be 14:19 achieved under conditions severe enough to warrant it would be that SRM could provide a stop 14:25 Gap that buys time to make the big change the transformative changes necessary to reduce emissions to zero 14:31 but even if you're using SRM in the interim you still have to do that. It is only an interim band aid stop gap 14:38 solution. The state of knowledge is kind of surprising. It's a sort of one and 14:43 other hand story. It's solid enough to indicate that SRM warrants a much more 14:49 serious look with more extensive research. That's based on broad basis for confidence that 14:56 it could work. It could cool the climate quite uniformly and with relatively small environmental impacts. It's a long 15:03 long way from enough knowledge to warrant taking these results as certain 15:08 and running ahead to do full-scale deployment but we actually know 15:14 quite a lot about the processes involved and not just from the small amount of research that's been done explicitly on 15:20 SRM. The main method putting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere replicates 15:25 natural aerosols periodic events that inject more from volcanoes and also is 15:31 very similar to some of the air pollution that we emit down low so there's a lot of knowledge about the effects of that from observation of 15:39 other atmospheric processes. For example that's mainly what the NOAA research program that Lloyd referred to is 15:46 doing. They're doing baseline flights in the stratosphere to measure and characterize the aerosols that are there 15:51 already. For the additional research, the model studies have been done looking at what SRM would do placed on 15:58 top of some projected climate change scenario. There's been about 100 studies done. The results are 16:07 shockingly strongly favorable even in many cases where the researchers went into the study trying to find a way 16:14 to break it and show that it couldn't possibly work. The broad results of those model studies which require making 16:19 assumptions about how SRM is used are that it looks like it can reduce 16:24 greenhouse gas driven climate change almost everywhere in the world. The model studies show maybe 1 to 16:31 2% of the surface area of the world where an SRM intervention actually takes the climate the wrong way. It either 16:37 makes it you know too hot or even hotter or even wetter but it's a long way from confidence 16:44 to support near-term action. The one thing that hasn't been done and on which the commission made I think a real 16:50 advance is nobody's actually done a field study even at the tiniest scale to go and look at whether stuff would work 16:56 in the way that it's assumed to work in the model. There have been a couple of proposals to do studies I mean from one place 17:04 basically putting a few kilograms of material in the stratosphere to see what happens that have been slowed and 17:11 challenged by controversy mainly related to the societal and governance implications. I just want to 17:18 close by saying there's a contrast here. The scientific research we 17:23 know a lot more than we would think because it connects to so many areas that are well known and the results are 17:28 shockingly favorable but the role of SRM could only be favorable for human welfare in the environment depending 17:35 upon its being used and controlled properly. Most of the high stakes issues and the big concerns and controversies are 17:41 actually not about what the aerosols do in the stratosphere, they're about who would control this how would they use it 17:47 for what ends. Would it be competent, would it be just, would it be non-corrupt, would countries fight over it? 17:54 That's a little outside what you asked me to do but I really do have to say those are the big 18:01 problems, thanks very much.
Robert Tulip
.