I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we 
don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale.  I understand 
that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs 
from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude smaller scale than would 
be necessary (it would not be hard to find historical examples of wildly 
inaccurate cost estimates of either sign of error, indeed I suspect it would be 
hard to find any comparable examples where cost estimates turned out to have 
been pretty good).  

 

In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing a 
similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is 
premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the assumption 
that DAC will turn out to be cheap.  I think “we” ought to invest vastly more 
$$ in learning how to scale up technology.

 

Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse

 

I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that 
critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments and 
then generalize 

to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I 
personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be 
deployed at the scale needed 

to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that 
plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same 
type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non 
scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments 
have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to 
your list(with equivocation)  .

 

 I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of 
climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by 
climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. 

Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" 
risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode 
that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially 
scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large 
number of future  paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and 
state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is 
just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk 
we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically 
sound .  The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the 
future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing 
risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From 
many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of 
giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class 
physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I 
stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly responsible for 
creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from 
exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its 
objectivity we are truly in trouble.   

 

I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches 
though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the risks their 
deployment might create for reasons related to the above arguments. In fact I 
woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were the case it would mean we 
understand things much better than we do now and that would be great.My 
reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to design the future than 
predict it. By this I mean we can develop capabilities like DAC and CDR and 
renewable energy and possible even SRM  so we can actually damp out any mode 
that threatens to grow and cause great destruction. That such an adaptive 
system is easier create than to  be able to predict the future with any 
meaningful accuracy. Having said that I want to be clear I also think modelling 
is valuable for it will help us identify early signs of modes that if allowed 
to grow could destabilize our climate. They can be used to create a so called 
planning horizon in which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. 

 

I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have a 
scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can achieve 
independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science is about and we 
should all commit to doing it.  

 

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k

 

Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased)

- Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to) factual 
accuracy

- Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data

 

I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse".

 

I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our field. 
I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more examples, and 
any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit arguments. I've listed 
advocates of the arguments, where these are top-of-mind

- Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics

- Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation

- Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris

- Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM

- DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?)

- SRM will cause monsoon failure

- SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying

- Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer)

- Moral hazard exists in the form conventionally described

- Greenfinger scenarios are likely (controversial?)

- CDR can be used late-century, as an alternative to near-term mitigation 
(Paris)

 

 

Thoughts are welcome

 

A

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





 

-- 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain 
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the 
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the 
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to