Recording of PRAG meeting, Monday 25th April
rob...@rtulip.net
Thanks all for joining, and special thanks to Victor Smetacek.
We had a good discussion of how the matrix of climate scenarios can be a basis for wider discussion of solar geoengineering.
Here is the link to the recording - https://youtu.be/bG9cj0mqVsA
Two journals where we could submit an article are linked below.
- Call for proposals special issue on "Strategic and Governance Implications of Solar Geoengineering"
https://twitter.com/jmorenocruz/status/1508749216008572931
Call for proposals special issue on "Strategic and Governance Implications of Solar Geoengineering"
We invite researchers to submit a paper for a special issue of Strategic Behavior and the Environment aimed at exploring strategic and governance implications of solar geoengineering. Strategic Behavior and the Environment is a platform for the various disciplines that jointly contribute to our understanding of strategic behavior and environmental policy. Scholars in economics (including experimental economics, political economy and game theory), political science, international relations, negotiation, and other disciplines are invited to submit manuscripts.
Key dates
- Deadline for proposals of papers to be considered for the special issue: May 31, 2022
- Decision on papers to be included in the special issue: June 30, 2022
- Submission deadline (papers out for review): December 30, 2022
- Decision target date: July 31, 2023
- Publication target date: December 2023
Proposal guidelines and criteria
- Draft a proposal of 1000 word or less
- Clearly identify the question or issue you will address on the paper
- Clearly explain the approach you will use to address the issue of interest
- Explain how your proposal is suitable for this special issue
Submission
Submit a proposal to the following email addresses by May 31, 2022. Please use 'SBE Proposal' in the subject line.
- Todd L Cherry and Juan Moreno-Cruz: sbe.geoen...@gmail.com
Special Issue Description
A 2021 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine recommends that the United States, in collaboration with other nations, should invest in a sustained research program to enhance policymakers' understanding of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. In addition to technical feasibility and effectiveness, the report recommends a robust social science research effort to better understand the possible impacts on society, including distributional, political and economical concerns. This special issue aims to contribute to this emerging research agenda.
2. Special Issue on The Politics of Geoengineering
If you are conducting research on the politics of geoengineering, broadly conceived, please consider sending an abstract of an article for consideration of publication in a Special Topics issue of the Politics of Technology section of Frontiers in Political Science.
Frontiers is the 9th largest publisher worldwide (in 2021) and the 1st most-cited multidisciplinary publisher in 2020 (see 2021 Progress Report)
Frontiers in Political Science was launched in late 2019 (2021 Review and 2022 Plan), and is now listed on SCOPUS.
For consideration of publication in the Special Issue on The Politics of Geoengineering, please send an abstract and brief bio sketch to thi...@ufl.edu, with the subject line Politics of Geoengineering.
If you are interested in joining the editorial board of the Politics of Technology section, or serving as a reviewer, please send a C.V. to thi...@ufl.edu with the subject line Politics of Technology Reviewer/Editorial Board.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Specialty Chief Editor,
Politics of Technology, Frontiers in Political Science
Distinguished Professor, Political Science
302 Anderson Hall
University of Florida
1507 University Avenue
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7325
From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Sent: Saturday, 23 April 2022 10:39 PM
To: 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Douglas Grandt' <answer...@mac.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'noac-m...@googlegroups.com' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: PRAG meeting, Monday 25th April at 9 pm UK time
Meeting Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87270131801?pwd=OFZvMkRVVnRQUUhpUzJBM0kwZnFjUT09
9pm Monday UK = 1pm Monday California = 6am Tuesday Australia AEST. See you then.
Join email list at https://groups.google.com/g/planetary-restoration/members
https://planetaryrestoration.net/
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Saturday, 23 April 2022 7:42 AM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Subject: PRAG meeting, Monday 25th April at 9 pm UK time
The Planetary Restoration Action Group will meet at the usual time of 9 pm Monday UK time (BST) - Tuesday in Australia. Robert will send everyone a link.
We are using our temperature trajectories diagram to illustrate the consequences of various strategies for dealing with the climate crisis.
The best-known strategy, promoted by IPCC and climate activists, is that of emissions reduction to net zero which involves decarbonisation of the world economy together with a relatively small amount of CDR. One of the consequences of decarbonisation is the removal of SO2 aerosol cooling; so the rate of temperature increase is liable to double, as we show in the diagram. This strategy also ignores the rapid deterioration of the Arctic situation.
We want to contrast this strategy with other strategies in a tabular format, in order to show its weakness and what actually needs to be done to rescue the situation in the Arctic and elsewhere.
Yesterday Ye Tao gave an excellent presentation about rectifying the imbalance of the Earth's radiative forcing amounting to a staggering 1000 terawatts (= 1 petawatt). The loss of albedo in the Arctic since 1980 amounts to about half this, so we need a huge amount of cooling just directed at the Arctic to start refreezing it. And it is really urgent.
Cheers, John
--
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/CACS_Fxo-n8%2B0J2RLexuuYrk%3DmfUZ6BVO994SE7cd3ojrDr5VCw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
John Nissen
Hi all,
We made good progress on several fronts, but I particularly want to mention the scenarios table that Doug and I have been preparing and that we presented at the meeting. It was met with considerable enthusiasm as a means of summarising our key findings for the consumption of a wide audience and for use in outreach.
Doug has a version of the table here [1] but there’s a more recent version with the blue (Arctic cooling) coming after the purple (Global and regional cooling). Note that in future we will be referring to the website rather than including images and diagrams in the text or as attachments which gobble up space.
It was agreed that 1980 was a good baseline state of the Earth System for restoration of temperatures, GHG levels, and ice in the Arctic (since the sea ice retreat seems to have started around 1980 and satellite records start from 1979).
Some changes to the table were discussed:
- Regional cooling is to exclude the Arctic but include Antarctica and other regions for critical cooling such as the Himalayas and the Great Barrier Reef.
- For the scenario descriptions, the green curve should be for “Net zero mostly by decarbonisation”, as this more accurately captures the IPCC’s official strategy as promoted in AR6 which allows for some CDR and methane removal to achieve net zero. By having “mostly by decarbonisation” the SO2 emissions will be reduced substantially which produces the upward trend of the green curve [2]. Note that some environment purists, reportedly including Greta Thunberg, want zero emissions through complete decarbonisation of the world economy by 2050.
- The “Claims and assumptions” column should be “Aims and assumptions”, and so the “claim” for the net zero strategy should be made an “aim” in line with the other scenarios.
- A narrow column should be added for the global temperature anomaly in 2050, which would be around 0.5°C for the purple curve if we want to get back to the temperature anomaly in 1980. For the blue curve, the entry can be “N/A”, since we are talking about global temperature.
- The “immediate risks” entries for the first four scenarios can be shortened to “High risk of catastrophic climate change and sea level rise” with a footnote [3].
The main immediate risk for the blue and purple strategies is that Arctic and global cooling cannot be ramped up quickly enough, especially for the Arctic where positive feedbacks are working against us and time is critical.
The “Implementation costs” could be changed to “Delivery cost”, which is less technical.
I am unhappy with “Damage costs” and wonder about “Human cost” instead, since lives and livelihoods matter more than material damage.
We discussed having a “benefits” column. Perhaps instead we could have a final “verdict” column in which we could say what we think the benefits are, while damning the BAU strategy for being totally unsupportable. For the green strategy, we could say that it is good for long-term sustainability and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. For the red strategy, the CDR reduces cost and speed of achieving net zero. For the dashed red, it enables GHGs to be brought down to 1980 levels by 2050. Also the strategy could include regeneration of soil carbon and ocean life, which would have benefits for food security. For the purple, it is absolutely necessary for reversing global warming and halting SLR from ocean expansion. For the blue, it is an emergency action to refreeze the Arctic, thereby reducing risks of sudden catastrophic CC and SLR while other strategies deal with long-term problems of CC and SLR.
It needs to be made clear that a combination of strategies is required for the planetary restoration we want for our children: restoring the planet to a safe, sustainable and productive state. I believe planetary restoring is possible by 2050 if we pull out all the stops without delay.
Cheers, John
[2] The green curve is based on Hansen’s “Faustian bargain of emissions reduction”: the rate of warming is likely to double over the next 25 years compared to the past 50 years due to removal of the SO2 aerosol cooling effect.
The Rate of Global Warming During Next 25 Years Could Be Double What it Was in the Previous 50, a Renowned Climate Scientist Warns
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092021/global-warming-james-hansen-aerosols/
[3] The footnote for the first four strategies can read:
The strategy does not cover critical tipping points for which SRM is required. There is already accelerated climate change and sea level as a result of tipping points in the Arctic:
· retreat of the sea ice is reducing Arctic albedo, accelerating Arctic warming, reducing the polar-tropics temperature gradient, disrupting jet stream behaviour, causing more sticking weather, increasing the trend towards greater extremes of weather and climate, and risking certain parts of the world becoming uninhabitable quite soon;
· further disruption of the AMOC could suddenly aggravate climate change through changing the global ocean circulation;
· melt of land ice and retreat of Arctic glaciers is accelerating meltwater discharge, increasing the rate of sea level rise globally, overtaking ocean expansion as the main cause of sea level rise, and making over a metre of sea level rise inevitable this century without SRM;
· the covering of the Greenland Ice Sheet with moulins is increasing the amount of water pooling under the ice, risking sudden bursts of meltwater under glaciers, lubricating their descent, risking avalanches of giant ice blocks, creating mega-tsunamis and sudden sea level rise eventually amounting to several metres;
· a sudden outburst of megatons of methane from Arctic permafrost would boost both Arctic warming and global warming with impacts on climate change and sea level rise.
The above represent risks of catastrophic impacts which could come quite suddenly at any time through tipping point activation. Note that if the global temperature continues to rise much above its present level, ocean expansion could lead to over a metre of sea level rise this century which would be catastrophic for many places in the world.