What if the release of information were reversed?

Phage is correct about the use of the "had" as used in that context.
They mean "if they had been deployed", not that "they had been".

Carry on.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.

I haven't read the article/paper but I will comment on the above quote.
'Is' as in '...is masking a high degree..' is the important word here. If it was a hypothetical
scenario, 'was' would be the correct choice of word.
Having said that, if this was reporting reality, 'has' would replace the word 'had' as in '.. SRM, that had
been deployed...' as the correct choice of word.
Just my (euro) cents.

Oh Yeah. Chemtrails ARE real, regardless.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Here is the link again. www.cbd.int...

So, far, I'm concerned with lines 160-163.
I'm unable to copy and paste the information, but I'll type it here:

Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.

SRM means Solar Radiation Management. From the above text, it clearly states that they are currently using SRM and it is combating global warming, but they fear stopping it in a sudden manner because it would lead to even worse results.

So, they have begun acting on their ideas and using the technology to curb global warming. They also do not like the idea of terminating the activities.

The section you refer to is a parphrasing of section 4.1.5, which reads in full

4.1.5 Rate of environmental change and the termination effect

It is not just the magnitude, nature and distribution of environmental changes (from climate change or from solar geo-engineering) that will affect biodiversity and ecosystem services, but also the rate at which the changes take place. In general, the faster an environment changes, the greater the risk to species . SRM, if effective, could slow, halt or even reverse the pace of global warming much more quickly than emissions cuts (instantly versus decades or longer), notwithstanding potential side effects. Therefore, it could either be deployed at short order in order to counter imminent threats, or more gradually to shave she peaks off more extreme warming, in order to allow more time for species to adapt .

However, in addition to the biological and ecological impacts of SRM identified above, there is an additional issue to consider when evaluating the general effects of all SRM techniques on biodiversity and ecosystem services: the so-called ‘termination effect’.

SRM would only offset global warming so long as it is maintained. The cessation of SRM would result in increased rates of climatic changes, in the absence of effective reductions of
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations: all the warming that would have taken place over several decades might take place over a shorter period.

Rapid termination of SRM that had been deployed for some time, and was masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change. SRM does not address the problem of ocean acidification because it does not address CO2 concentrations.

Without any opportunity for species and communities to adapt, many microbial organisms, plants, animals and their interactions could be affected: current rates of anthropogenic climate change are already altering, or are projected to alter, community structure , biogeochemical cycles , and fire risk . Very rapid warming from SRM termination could lead to similar problems.

Clearly from this, and the rest of the document, they are talking about it possibly being deployed in the future. Nothing in the entire document discusses SRM already being deployed, or any actual plans to do so.

reply to post by Uncinus


Yes. I have finished the article and I did see that section.
Strange typo with the first part I mentioned. Seeing as this is the second draft, I'm wondering if the first draft was edited because it had conflicting past and present tenses.

I'll be speaking more about the paper because there are certain parts that do bother me, but seeing as I'm unable to copy and paste the sections I'm wanting to refer to, pointing out specific text will be time consuming.

Stand by.

Originally posted by Uncinus

And as you noted, there's no evidence of spraying, so why test?

Who is to say they are spraying?
Is "spraying" the most cost effective method of SRM delivery?