Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:07:37 -0800

Dear Peter--The IPCC FOD (first order draft) of the 1.5 C special report is what is really concerning me.
First, they label their emissions pathways by the end point temperature that they are aiming for a century or so in the future; thus a 1.5 C pathway is aiming at 1.5 C, but there is wide recognition and apparent acceptance that the temperature path will overshoot not just 1.5 or 2 C, but could well go a good bit over 3 C before the forcings are brought back down enough (via negative emissions, etc.) to get back to 1.5 C. Well, right now, simulations by Climate Interactive etc. have the world exceeding 2 C by 2050 and headed up a good bit further. So, we'll be having all this talk about being on 1.5 pathways when in reality the impacts will be primarily determined by the peak temperature, say 3 or 3.5 C, and some, like biodiversity loss and acceleration of ice sheet loss (and perhaps ocean acidification effects) are not really going to be reversible. Well, I just don't see emissions as likely to be cut fast enough or DAC as being phased up fast enough to prevent this, and I think the temperature/climate induced impacts are only likely to be able to be avoided with SRM, so it is needed in the near-term, and until emissions cuts and DAC can take over. 


My second problem with the IPCC FOD 1.5 report is that it basically 
accepts (based on no scientific evidence--only that negotiators chose 
that value as an aspirational goal) as the agreed upon long-term 
equilibrium temperature for society. In my view (not to mention the 
views of others), that is just too high a value. As Hansen et al. have 
argued, some long-term impacts like accelerating glacial ice loss and 
intensifying climate extremes, for example, started once we passed 0.5 
C, so what we really need to do is get to below this value for the 
long-term (and some argue 0.5 C would be too high if one wants to really 
freeze stop the glacial loss (if that is possible). Well, while SRM 
could get us that cool, we really have to be working to phase out SRM, 
and so DAC is critical and is, as you suggest, the way to really not be 
creating other impacts in the long-term. But, it is going to take time 
to get there, and during this time, SRM has the potential to, with I 
think what might well be pretty modest negative impacts, to be holding 
down the climate change impacts until DAC is adequately phased up.



What I think about your response that might rub those of us responding 
to you is the implication that DAC can do everything needed--well, with 
really tremendous cost, it could (starting now, to keep the temperature 
from not going up further, it would need to be removing enough CO2 to 
keep the atmospheric concentration from rising, so something like 40 
GtCO2/yr--plus more to account for increases in methane, etc.--and while 
this could perhaps, on a technological basis, be done, this just seems 
to be a lot less likely and much more expensive than starting with SRM 
while emissions are phased down and DAC is phased up.



It basically seems to me that the trends and impacts today make clear 
that the actual global temperature increase needs to be kept to less 
than 1.5 C and that early on there needs to be action aimed at moving 
the peak global average temperature increase back to below 0.5 C over 
the next few decades, doing all we can by emissions reductions of CO2 
and especially short-lived species, strong efficiency efforts, moving 
aggressively to renewables, as much CDR as possible, and then the rest 
by SRM. So, we need every arrow in our quiver, and not implementing all 
throughout coming decades will result in significant negative 
consequences. Having you advocate this as well would seem to me the way 
to best unify our perspectives.


Best, Mike

On 12/3/17 3:06 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

Dear Mike ,

Something stange is going on here that perhaps you can help me 
understand . I repeatedly state that I am for doing research on other 
things and SRM explicitly . Yet somehow in asserting what i believe is 
a higher priority for our common objective I am accused of argunig 
against supporting other things. Maybe I have been out of a zero sum 
funding world but in any case I reject such logic as a basis for 
shaping our scientific positions. I think a let a 100 flowers bloom or 
everything goes approach shirks our responsibility as scientists where 
we should discipline ourselves to use our knowledge to prioritize 
things . I assert again I cannot support nor do I think it is 
justified to support SRM before one supports DAC . One is a backup and 
the other is a shot a a solution -the only sustainable solution(eg 
with renewable energy etc I know at this time
The logic that a large investment in DAC will rob funds for other 
purposes is just wrong. As the paper I sent you shows certainly alot 
of DAC ( I argue all ) can use the CO2 to make money (not a cost a 
benefit) and store it at the same time. So as I have written I am 
convinced that in this century we will be harvesting our carbon from 
the sky (where it is excess) rather than mining it from the ground. 
$50 per tonne CO2 in terms of carbon content is about $40 per barrel. 
Yes I do assert that DAC that is used to provide our liquid fuels, 
hydrocarbions and our building materials will not be a burden on 
society but an asset. By the way if one is concerned about wasting 
capital than join me in appposing electric vehicles and instead suport 
renewable gasoline made for CO2 from the air and hydrogen from water 
powereed by the sun. That will save trillions in new infrastructure 
that could indeed be better spent on education or health or other 
infrastructure .


Peter


On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Michael MacCracken 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


    Dear Peter--I don't really think you can say that your approach is
    without the risk of adverse impacts in that it will take much
    longer to pull down the temperature than will DAC. Yes, DAC gets
    you to the lower temperature over time, but in the interim a lot
    is going on. Now, yes, if a very great more were invested to
    implement DAC, one could have a nearer-term impact, but then one
    is taking money from society for other purposes, etc. It seems to
    me, the metric to be used for comparison might be the net
    reduction in impacts (I do agree SRM would not uniquely lead to
    less impacts everywhere and of every type) per unit of money of
    some amount invested.

    This is not in any way to be saying we should not be investing in
    DAC but I don't think your argument makes the case for not also
    doing research on SRM of various types (and SRM is getting very
    little research money as well). Given the seriousness and
    imminence of the predicament that we are in, in my opinion, a
    broad-based and aggressive research effort is needed that
    recognizes the advantages and shortcomings of each type of
    approach and ultimately aims for a program that draws on multiple
    approaches to deal with the rapidly worsening situation.

    Best, Mike MacCracken


    On 12/3/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

    Dear Doug ,

    I am sorry for the misunderstanding : I am clearly for doing
    efforts on other approaches including SRM

    But the situation as it stands is that the only solution
    conceptually that can address the threat of climate change
    without the risk of adverse impacts is DAC with permanent
    storage. Yet it is the only approach to this date that has
    effectively zero public funding support and until very recently
    policy support. So my argument is that we all should support
    public funding of DAC efforts that can be published and shared
    that will test the premise that it can be done at low cost at a
    gigatonne scale. What I have further shared is that our
    commercial efforts involving experts in  industrail gas
    technology  ( eg separating gases from air) have determined that
    $50 per tonne DAC is achievable and that we are having great
    commercial success -so much so that I have committed us not to
    seek public funding if it were approved.

    So the only reason I am writing about this is because I do not
    think we should delay investing in DAC till as you say

    Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale
    and proven it to be low cost with no side effects,

    When I read that I think that every year we delay starting a
    serious effort on DAC is a year longer of risking catastrophic
    climate change -the overshoot will be more and the time will be
    greater. So I literally believe that I need to surpress my
    interests in the company where others delaying is better(less
    competition) and instead as a scientist try to get people to
    understand that DAC will be low cost -all we have to do is do it
    . Furthermore I argue that our patents that are public enable an
    indpendent person like Ellen Stechl to understand why DAC can be
    low cost and why others are mistaken in asserting otherwse .
    Peter

    On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Douglas MacMartin
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        Peter,

        Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt
        scale and proven it to be low cost with no side effects, then
        I would agree that we can stop researching other options.
        Until then I think it is premature to declare that we have
        found the solution and can ignore every other option.  I know
        you disagree with me, but I do not think that we know what
        the costs of a technology are going to be when we haven’t
        implemented it at even a tiny fraction of a meaningful
        scale.  I’m not convinced that it will be as cheap as you
        believe it to be, but furthermore, it is not possible for you
        to convince me without demonstrating both removal and storage
        at Gt scale; sorry, but I’ve been an engineer all my life and
        have seen my share of overconfident predictions (and probably
        safe to say zero accurate predictions at this stage of
        technology development), and I simply don’t believe that it
        is theoretically possible to accurately predict costs and
        issues to sufficient accuracy without actually doing something.

        Therefore I don’t understand why you insist on picking the
        right solution today and stopping all research on all other
        solutions.  I don’t view this as a competition.

        At any rate, if you have any concern about nonlinearities and
        tipping points, you should strongly support research into
        SRM, as that’s a pretty strong argument in favour of it.  We
        don’t know what would happen if we allowed the planet to keep
        warming, but we’re a lot less likely to pass major earth
        system tipping points if we keep the system “closer” to the
        current state.  That is, of course it is almost trivially
        true that a world that is say 1.5C (just to use the Paris
        number, not endorsing it) due only to CO2 is less risky than
        a world that would have been 3C due to CO2 but is brought
        back to 1.5C with SRM.  But that second scenario is quite
        likely to be less risky than allowing a 3C world.  Although
        we don’t actually know that today, not without further
        research.  So I’m not sure why you’re so vehemently opposed
        to any further research into SRM… which is how I interpret
        your comments.

        doug

        *From:*[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        [mailto:[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
        *Peter Eisenberger
        *Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:48 AM
        *To:* Michael Hayes <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>
        *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>; David Keith
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        *Subject:* Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for
        Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

        Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant
        than their transitory impact on climate. Their most
        significant role is in replenishing critcal elements to
        preserve the fertiliity of the soil.

        This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact
        will be of human efforts to do SRM on the rest of the
        ecosystems. This in turn is the cause for concern about
        unexpected consequences and a concern that cannot be addressed

        by theory or experiment because complex systems evolution is
        not predictable and we only have one planet. The important
        aspect of climate change from a risk perspective  is not the
        first order linear responses but rather whether one crosses
        some tipping point where the internal feedbacks drive the
        system to a very different and usually catastrophic state.
        Such tipping points are an inherent property of both the
        climate and the ecosystems and ala the butterfly effect are
        inherently unpredictable.

        Thus the real issue is not how SRM is like volcanoes but
        rather what are the unintended feedback from SRM.  As a
        physicist ,and not a DAC advocate,  the fact is that DAC with
        permanent storage is the path to address the risk of
        catastrophic climate change that has the lowest risk of
        triggering adverse impacts compared to alternatives when
        implemented at a global scale for any signiifcant period of
        time.

        It is clear to that all of us share the goal of wanting to
        prevent the consequences of catastrophic climate change. So
        in the positive spirit of tryimg to develop a consencus
        ageneda  I assert

        The BEST path to address the threat of catastrophic climate
        change involves DAC with permeant storage -it is necessary .

         I respectfully ask for resposes to this assertion and that
        we  have a constructive dialoque to see if if stands up to
        scrutiny.   I do not want to be asserting an incorect postion
        but I do want our community

        to develop a clear science based consencus for the best
        actions to take.

        Again to be clear I personally support R&D on SRM but in the
        context that DAC with permanent storage is the clear
        priority. If my assertion is wrong and in fact we have no low
        risk and cost path to addressing the risk than of course SRM
        would have a high priority and I would want us  to be
        asserting that .

        On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Michael Hayes
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            Sentinel-SP5 feed:

            
http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_volcanic_eruption
            
<http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_volcanic_eruption>


            --
            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
            [email protected]
            <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
            To post to this group, send email to
            [email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>.
            Visit this group at
            https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
            <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
            For more options, visit
            https://groups.google.com/d/optout
            <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
        [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>.
        To post to this group, send email to
        [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>.
        Visit this group at
        https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
        <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
        <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 [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    To post to this group, send email to
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    Visit this group at
    https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
    <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
    <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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.






















					Reply via email to