sira ve stratosfere - stephenson kritizuje projekt na detekci tohoto, protoze mu pripada spatne uzavirat si tuto cestu

vymezuje se proti clanku v NYT

Just to lay my cards on the table, I think that SRM should be investigated and possibly even implemented. But I don’t think it is likely to be, because people on the right and left both hate it. People on the right lump it in with chemtrails, and hate it for the same reasons (if that is the correct word) they now have now decided that the polio vaccine is bad. People on the left hate it because…well, I’ll get to that in a second. So I don’t think it will happen unless a Trumpian figure comes out in favor of it and pitches it to the populist base in a style that will make those people think it’s awesome.

In other words, I think that this is largely an abstract debate that is more interesting as a case study in fallibilism than it is on its own merits.

The NYT Article
The article describes how some exceptionally smart and technically capable people are using their ingenuity and energy (and presumably taxpayer money) to set up a detection system that will enable them to blow the whistle on anyone who actually tries to implement SRM. This is because “[SRM] could also unleash untold dangers. Many worry that solar geoengineering could have unintended consequences.”

I’m not going to pore over the article in detail because I try to keep these Substack entries reasonably short. But if we take it at face value, it seems that everyone mentioned in this story, as well as the journalist writing it, simply accepts the premise that even the smallest and most preliminary efforts that might be made towards studying SRM are so unthinkably reckless that the most important thing that they can possibly be devoting their careers to is creating sophisticated systems “to measure aerosol concentration and raise a red flag at any anomalies.”

Geoengineering (Wrong 2) - by Neal Stephenson - Graphomane
https://nealstephenson.substack.com/p/geoengineering

Other methods to implement SRM have been proposed, such as using huge systems of balloons or firing enormous guns into the air. The only thing they have in common is that they are almost comically enormous. They have to be, since what they are trying to do is to replicated in a controlled manner some of the largest volcanic explosions in history.

What then is the purpose of putting all of this ingenuity to work building these exquisitely sophisticated systems for detecting faint traces of aerosols in the stratosphere? The only explanation that makes any sense is that the goal is to sense even the tiniest and most preliminary exploratory efforts in the field of SRM. Experiments, basically. Programs that are, by definition, too small to actually change the climate. If someone were changing the climate, we’d know about it. We wouldn’t need high altitude balloons or WB-57s. We could just aim a webcam at the special airport where hundreds of weird planes were taking off every day.

And it’s worth reiterating—because the level of anxiety about SRM is so high—that the purpose of those weird planes would not be to drop bombs, spray nerve gas, or strafe peasants, but to ameliorate, temporarily and reversibly, the effects of a completely uncontrolled and incredibly reckless geoengineering experiment that the human race has been engaging in for 200 years, and will continue to engage in for at least another 50 years, by dumping vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and the oceans.

A charge often levelled against environmentalists by the right is that tree-huggers are in some sense anti-technological and by extension anti-human. That they are in love with the idea of an unspoiled natural order and that anything humans do to change it is automatically bad.

But that doesn’t explain this curiously asymmetrical reaction to, on the one hand, the very idea that some people might engage in preliminary studies of techniques intended to save humanity from the consequences of too much anthropogenic CO2 in the air, vs., on the other hand, the ongoing reality of what we are actually doing when we burn fossil fuels. I don’t understand how people who think this way are going to explain such positions when a million people are lying dead of heatstroke somewhere. The only way I can process it is to construe it as a kind of religious belief—an article of faith.

Wildfires in Siberia are a growing global threat • Earth.com
https://www.earth.com/news/wildfires-in-siberia-are-a-growing-global-threat/

The simulations revealed that the increased intensity of wildfires in Siberia could lead to significant atmospheric changes, notably a cooling effect across the northern hemisphere. This phenomenon is largely due to the aerosols, or tiny air pollution particles, emitted by the fires which can reflect sunlight away from the earth’s surface.

Professor Teppei Yasunari, a key member of the research team, explained: “Our modeling reveals a cooling effect broadly across the northern hemisphere and worsened air quality in extensive downwind regions.”

Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration-hope-vs-hopium

Accumulating evidence supports the interpretation in our Pipeline paper: decreasing human-made aerosols increased Earth’s energy imbalance and accelerated global warming in the past decade. Climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing, physically independent quantities, were tied together by United Nations IPCC climate assessments that rely excessively on global climate models (GCMs) and fail to measure climate forcing by aerosols. IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing both understate reality. Preservation of global shorelines and global climate patterns – the world humanity is adapted to – likely will require at least partly reversing global warming. Required actions and time scale are undefined. A bright future for today’s young people is still possible, but its attainment is hampered by precatory (wishful thinking) policies that do not realistically account for global energy needs and aspirations of nations with emerging economies. An alternative is needed to the GCM-dominated perspective on climate science. We will bear a heavy burden if we stand silent or meek as the world continues on its present course.

dvě studie

1. že když se aerosol engineering začne až při vysoké globální teplotě, už to nepomůže na ten AMOC problém a celkově oceány, protože vodě trvá dlouho než se přizpůsobí změnám v teplotě vzduchu. Jako že "start soon".

2. dehydratace atmosféry, seeding clouds / změny ve vodní páře vyšly v nové studii jako že by měly jen malý efekt (je to druhá metoda o které se uvažuje)

takže "je to špatný nápad (aerosols injection), ale udělá se to, protože je to nejlevnější. Odclonit antropo přírustek teploty by stálo 30 miliard dolarů ročně, tj částku kterou američani vydávají na žrádlo pro domácí mazlíčky."

We Need to Start Climate Engineering Soon, New Study Says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZiEcx0F_CM


PETER_PAN: UN mělo teď setkání v Nairobi na téma climate engineering without reaching any conclusions (research, ban or just do it?).
Jak jsi psal že není pravděpodobné, že by se to povolilo.

“Cooling credits” are not a viable climate solution | Climatic Change
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03561-w

As the world struggles to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C below pre-industrial temperatures, research into solar climate interventions that could temporarily offset some amount of greenhouse gas-driven global warming by reflecting more sunlight back out to space has gained prominence. These solar climate intervention techniques would aim to cool the Earth by injecting aerosols (tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere) into the upper atmosphere or into low-altitude marine clouds. In a new development, “cooling credits” are now being marketed that claim to offset a certain amount of greenhouse gas warming with aerosol-based cooling. The science of solar climate intervention is currently too uncertain and the quantification of effects insufficient for any such claims to be credible in the near term. More fundamentally, however, the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and aerosols are too different for such credits to be an appropriate instrument for reducing climate risk even if scientific uncertainties were narrowed and robust monitoring systems put in place. While some form of commercial mechanism for solar climate intervention implementation, in the event it is used, is likely, “cooling credits” are unlikely to be a viable climate solution, either now or in the future.

New Study Warns of an Imminent Spike of Planetary Warming and Deepens Divides Among Climate Scientists - Inside Climate News
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112023/study-warns-of-spike-of-warming-divides-climate-scientists/

the research was controversial even before it was published, and it may widen the rifts in the climate science community and in the broader public conversation about the severity and imminence of climate impacts, with Hansen criticizing the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for underestimating future warming, while other researchers, including IPCC authors, lambasted the new study.

The research suggests that an ongoing reduction of sulfuric air pollution particles called aerosols could send the global average annual temperature soaring beyond the targets of the Paris climate agreement much sooner than expected, which would sharply increase the challenges faced by countries working to limit harmful climate change under international agreements on an already treacherous geopolitical stage.

...

Combining the the paleoclimate data with modeling and detailed observations from the last few decades, the team concluded that the world is in for a wild ride of climate impacts, including possible superstorms that could toss house-sized boulders to the top of seaside cliffs, radical changes to global rainfall patterns that would affect agriculture in densely populated regions and possibly several meters of sea level rise by 2100, as compared to the IPCC-projected range of .29 to 1.1 meters.

...

Hansen’s new research about the relative strengths of those competing effects diverges from many other studies by suggesting the cooling effect has been underestimated so that as sulfur aerosols and their effects on clouds are reduced, temperature will increase more than expected.

How clouds will change in the decades ahead, and their interaction with aerosols, remains the single greatest uncertainty in making accurate projections for future temperature increases, according to most climate scientists. Several key satellite instruments that could have helped answer that question never made it into orbit in the 1980s and 1990s, despite repeated requests, Hansen said.

...

Schmidt said a new mission called PACE (short for Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem) could quickly reduce the uncertainties surrounding the effects of aerosols on the climate. That satellite should be in orbit within the coming year. Copernicus, the European Union climate change service, is also launching a new satellite, EarthCARE, also with the goal of measuring the relationship of aerosols, clouds and precipitation to how much of the sun’s radiation reaches Earth to drive global heating.

Absent those data, the new study used a process of elimination to again show reductions in sulfur aerosols were triggering accelerated warming. Comparisons with past climate periods hold some of the clues, showing, for example, that reefs along the Yucatán Peninsula grew upward and shoreward in giant spurts over the course of just a few decades, about 100,000 years ago during the late Eemian geological era. That, Hansen said, is another warning sign that parts of Earth’s climate system, and particularly ice sheets and ice shelves, are more sensitive to warming than we think.

“The IPCC system doesn’t acknowledge the degree to which the aerosol forcing will affect the climate in the next few decades, probably more than anything else,” Simons said. “We hope we’re wrong.”

hansen

2023 Global warming in the pipeline
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ) 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 sensitivity and implies that CO2 was 300–350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, 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. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (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. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

TADEAS: