The Hill: In the climate red zone, the US and EU are considering urgent interventions

[OKIsItJustMe]

In the climate red zone, the US and EU are considering urgent interventions

BY KELLY WANSER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 07/22/23 10:00 AM ET

Brown skies over Europe and North America from Canadian wildfires and record “hot” North Atlantic seas are signs that we have reached a new level of climate risk — one that threatens the well-being of nearly everyone on Earth. Threats described in stark terms by the United Nations and by scientific and foreign affairs experts were underscored by global average surface temperatures briefly passing 1.5 degrees Celsius, a threshold for intensified danger, in early June.

In this context, both the European Union and the United States recently released official publications on the need for research on climate interventions with the potential to reduce global warming rapidly. This does not change imperatives and commitments for reducing emissions but is recognition from governments that evaluating options for improving climate safety is now too important to ignore.

The E.U. and U.S. publications both highlight the approach that scientists have identified as the most promising way to reduce substantial climate warming quickly, increasing the reflection of sunlight from clouds and particles in the atmosphere, or Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). SRM is based on a natural process that is also caused by particulates in pollution that act as a reflective shield. As renowned climate scientist Jim Hansen and others have called attention to recently, the climate could warm quickly as we clean up pollution and lose this shield.

In recent years, scientists have begun to research whether there might be cleaner, safer ways to produce the same effect. Such research is essential to determine whether SRM could improve climate safety for people and natural systems while the world transitions to a sustainable future. Earlier this year, more than 100 scientists from around the world signed an open letter calling for research on SRM.

…

[CrispyQ]

1. The ocean warming is alarming.

Humanity's on a bad trajectory.

[Think. Again.]

2. Sorry, but this really pisses me off...

From the article:

"In this context, both the European Union and the United States recently released official publications on the need for research on climate interventions with the potential to reduce global warming rapidly."

How is possible that after more than 50 years of awareness, we only just getting to this????

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Well for quite some time, some people have been saying we must not

If you look back through the ancient archives, you may be able to find me suggesting, that, clearly we were going to resort to this sort of thing eventually, it might be a good idea to research it properly in advance… (Others said, “No! It will only give people an excuse to keep burning more fossil fuel.” Well, they didn’t need an excuse, they just did it, and continue to do it.)

The metaphor I fixed on about 20 years ago was the climax of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Throughout the entire movie, the (primarily male) cast take incredible chances in blind pursuit of a bank robber's buried fortune.

At the climax, they find themselves on a fire escape, attached to a condemned high rise, fighting over a briefcase, containing the money. They don't acknowledge the threat they face, until, the money is lost to the winds.

When a fire truck appears to rescue them from their plight, they ignore the fireman's instructions to calmly transfer to the ladder one at a time. Instead, in their panic, they all attempt to get onto the ladder first. The result is cartoonish chaos, as characters are thrown by the overloaded ladder (in reality, they all would have been killed…)

We haven’t quite made it to what I call the “jump on the ladder” stage, where we are willing to try anything to save ourselves from the situation we have put ourselves in through our mindless pursuit of money.

[Think. Again.]

4. EXCELLENT analogy.

[Brenda]

5. Very Bad Idea.

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2023, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Is Biden really going to promote SRM to save us? While still leasing public lands to FF companies?

What could possibly go wrong.

Here's some of what could go wrong:

What Is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection?

SAI involves injecting reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere, where they reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Volcanic eruptions are natural versions of SAI, but technological constraints surround man-made SAI, as "dispersing aerosols in sufficiently high altitudes is challenging," according to a Climate Analytics report. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) explained:

"In effect, SAI simulates what happens during large volcanic eruptions, when volcanoes emit small particles into the upper atmosphere (called the stratosphere). These particles reflect sunlight and lead to cooling for as long as they remain in the stratosphere, which may be up to a few years after injection.

By injecting sulfate or other aerosol particles into the stratosphere, SAI would mimic the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption's effect of lower global temperatures. If ever deployed, SAI would have global impacts, reducing temperatures and altering precipitation patterns across the planet."

By reflecting more solar radiation back into space, the aerosols lower global temperatures but also have a serious "side effect" — they lower average precipitation. As a result, additional geoengineering techniques — such as thinning out cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere — would be necessary to counteract the decrease in precipitation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. And there we have it

Don’t say that President Biden is “promoting Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.” — He is not.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html

To be clear, nobody is saying sunlight-reflection modification is the solution to climate change. Reducing emissions remains the priority.

He’s doing what he was required to do by Congress:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/06/30/congressionally-mandated-report-on-solar-radiation-modification/

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is releasing a report in response to a Congressional mandate in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2022 related to solar radiation modification, also known as solar geoengineering. The report, which was developed in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other key federal agencies, identifies critical knowledge gaps and scopes potential research areas that could improve understanding of risks and benefits posed by solar radiation modification.

But, here's the thing, in 2008 with CO₂ levels around 380 ppm, Hansen et al, suggested that we aim for 350 ppm as a first target, even though 350 ppm was also probably too high (the idea was, if we could figure out how to lower CO₂ levels to 350 ppm, we could continue using the same methods to lower them further.) Since then, CO₂ levels have crossed 420 ppm, with no signs of slowing.

Looking at ice core data, in the past, the ecosystem was able to lower CO₂ levels about 1 ppm in 1,000 years. We don’t really have a good way to lower CO₂ levels quickly. If we stopped all emissions today, replanted all of the forests we have cut down, and planted new ones, we would continue to have CO₂ levels in excess 420 ppm for millennia.


From Hansen et al's forthcoming paper (still in review) Global warming in the pipeline (emphasis added by me.)

ABSTRACT

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2a) per W/m², which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO₂. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era - including “slow” feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases - supports this ECS and implies that CO₂ was 300-350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, thus exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming including slow feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (4.1 W/m²) is 10°C, reduced to 8°C by today’s aerosols. Decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970-2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Under the current geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will likely pierce the 1.5°C ceiling in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming pumps up hydrologic extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: 1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions, 2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and 3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made “geo-transformation” of Earth’s climate. These changes will not happen with the current geopolitical approach, but current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

With no effective way to rapidly lower atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the only way to intervene with Earth's radiation imbalance is to cut down on insolation somehow. We will do it eventually. Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we studied it a bit in advance?

[Calculating]

7. No, geoengineering is a horrible idea that Will cause wars

Some nations benefit from a warmer climate and they'll throw a fit if we start trying to make it colder
We just need to adapt to a hotter normal.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. OK, is this intended to be a joke?

No, seriously… If you’re serious, then we need to have some serious discussion…