Often climate problem solutions become discussed within the google group
that seem to me definitly outside of practicability as means to dissolve
the climate problem. Restraint in the discussion without opposing to
such climate engineering proposals should be avoided because it might be
interpreted as a kind of acceptance. DAC seems to me just to be an
example for this. Independent if the DAC-captured CO2 would become
stored as liquid CO2 at the ocean bottom, as solid gas hydrate or liquid
CO2 within empty former oil or natural gas storages or as carbonate rock
within hot or alkaline fissured porous volcanic or magmatic rock, or
even by using the captured CO2 as a basic chemical to synthesize special
organic chemicals or as a carbon source to grow tomatoes or
oil-producing algae - will face the problem, that thousands of giga tons
should become captured by such DAC methods until the end of the century.
Such unbelievable huge CO2 mass has to become extracted from the
atmosphere in the aim to gain a restriction of the climate warming
between 1 to 2 °C. Summing up all these methods and even further methods
like BECCS or char-coal burial to improve agricultural soils and to
minimize fertilizer consumption by Terra Preta soil production will not
be enough to sequester even one of said thousands of CO2 parts.
What to do? Where is the way out of this dilemma? Yes, of course: the
only way out is the activation and restauration of the globes well known
natural mechanisms of carbon sequestration. During the many past
geological epoches these natural mechanisms had been experienced their
ability to transform the huge gaseous CO2 carbon mass out of the
atmosphere into rock layers and sediments by efficient precipitation -
mainly as carbonate and to a small part as organic carbon. Until today
mankind acts without care within these multiple and komplex net of
natural CO2 carbon extraction and sequestration mechanism: On the one
hand these actions damaged the mechanism network, on the other hand
mankind simultaneous expanded the gasification of carbon to CO2, and to
the third mankind failed to adequate activate the step of the carbon
transfer between atmosphere and sequestration in parallel during carbon
gasification increase. Result is the recent CO2 level increase. To open
a good outcome from this bad situation at first said activation of the
carbon transfer between atmosphere and burial localities has to become
in action (1) and in second line or in parallel the restoration of the
well known natural carbon extraction and transport means must become
restored (2) and (3):
Oceans, continents and tropospheric boundary layer: Activation of
greenhouse gas depletion, cloud albedo increase, biotic and abiotic CO2
absorption by ocean water and phytoplankton, and activation of the
vertical cycling ocean currents Continents: Restoration of deforested
areas by ecosystem restoration of the former forests. Such measures will
not only restore the CO2 capture on the continents by generation of
organic carbon it will even restore the root-catalyzed CO2 capture by
weatheringCoasts and shelfes: Restoration of the ecosystems within the
habitats of mangroves, tidal marshes, coral reefs, seaweeds, and
seegrass
According to the natural CO2 capture systems the first global
initiatives to coordinate their restoration have come into action:
according to (2) the International Blue Carbon Initiative has been
founded. According to (1) an equivalent method mimicking the natural
method has been presented (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/).
Measures like stratospheric sunshine mirroring (SRM) often praised as
means to reduce the global surface temperature might induce more
problems than would definitly weaken the assimilative CO2 conversion
into organic carbon including the root-induced CO2 capture by enhanced
weathering.
Franz D. Oeste
gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168 <tel:+49%206422%2085168>
Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068 <tel:+49%20171%209526068>
[email protected]
www.gm-ingenieurbuero.com
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "Michael MacCracken" <[email protected]>
An: "Peter Eisenberger" <[email protected]>; "Douglas
MacMartin" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>; "geoengineering"
<[email protected]>; "David Keith"
<[email protected]>
Gesendet: 04.12.2017 18:01:35
Betreff: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb
Climate Change - Scientific American
Hi Peter--The disagreement we then have might be that we see two
different aspects of the emergency: the immediate term, and the longer
term.
1. The immediate term is what happens over the next couple of decades.
Emissions are now order 10 GtC/yr with proposed mitigation steps
needing to first stop the growth in emissions and then start bringing
it to zero, and with a timetable of that being several decades. The
consequence of that appears to be that we will blow through 1.5 C
warming in a decade or two and 2 C in another decade or two, so likely
by 2050 or so. Given impacts now occurring (deteiorating ice sheets,
increasing extremes, biodiversity threats), there is no chance that
mitigation plus any plausible DAC is going to prevent the impacts
initiated now and over next couple of decades. Without what would be
amazingly aggressive international government efforts, I would argue
only SRM can do this and as I've said elsewhere, I think the risks of
starting it at low levels now based on what we know and learning as we
go are less than the risks of letting climate change go on and on,
thinking we'd start intervention in two decades as some have argued is
how long a research program would take to make them really
knowledgeable.
2. The emergency that DAC is suited to address is the longer term
aspect of climate change, and could perhaps keep the peak temperature
increase (along with mitigation and other CDR) to say 2.5 C or so
before bringing it back down. Terrific, by if we get to a temperature
increase of 2 or 2.5 C, in my view, stopping very significant ice sheet
loss and a SL rise of many meters I think is not likely, especially if
the IPCC (as in the 1.5 FOD) is agreeing with the UNFCCC COP
aspirational long-term goal of 1.5 C. I just happen to think that if we
don't respond to the immediate term risks, there won't be much left for
the longer-term effort to be saving.
The analogy I would use is to imagine a building on fire with people in
it. SRM are the air-breathing masks that would let the fire-people go
in an bring out most of those trapped in the fire (given climate
impacts to date, some will be lost), and DAC are the water-pumping fire
engines that have to come, connect up, start spraying at the overall
inferno, will help to save the overall neighborhood, but are just not
going to be in time to rescue most of the people. There is no question
that we need both efforts (and in this analogy, stronger fire
prevention efforts as well).
So, I think Doug and I are saying there are (at least--considering
ocean acidification) two aspects of the very serious emergency we face
and if there is a raging fire in a building with people in it, one does
not take the air-breathing equipment or the fire hoses--one takes
everything and wants to have everything and know as much as one can
about everything, etc.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/3/17 11:47 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
All I can say is that there are two responses to a real emergency - a
response that says try everything and one that prioritizes. In most
situations and all with long time responses prioritization is always
chosen as the more effective approach . We are in a real emergency it
is our responsibility to prioritize if we want to really address the
threat effectively . Yes I suggest that while DAC should not be the
only thing to be supported it is at this time the number 1 priority .
I am willing to listen to other opinions and change my mind as needed
. I have also tried to add credibility by saying I pledge not to take
public funding if the recommendation was honored.
Doug , please understnd my call for prioritization is because of the
seriousness of the threat we face . We need to move beyond the
research phase and start the long effort required ASAP . I see a non
prioritized agenda resulting in marginal progress on many fronts and
significant progress (scale ) on none. The power of learning by doing
means we got to start on our best choices now.
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Douglas MacMartin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Peter,
I’d just add to Mike’s point that the specific wording of yours that
I explicitly disagree with is the word “priority”. To me, that
suggests, well, a prioritization… that is, we should focus on DAC to
the exclusion of other approaches. If you think we should consider
all of the available options, and invest in all of them, then you
shouldn’t use the word priority, nor say things like “The BEST path
to address the threat of catastrophic climate change involves DAC
with permeant storage”
Personally, I think we need a portfolio of options, and we shouldn’t
ignore any of them (and if you said we could only prioritize one
thing, I would rather strongly vote for mitigation). DAC and SRM are
different tools in the toolbox, and as Mike points out, the “best”
solution quite possibly involves both of them, along with aggressive
mitigation, and maybe along with other methods for CDR. That is
quite a different statement from stating that one particular approach
is the best, and that one particular approach should be prioritized.
Two other comments:
Right now the sum total US federal research on SRM is, within a
rounding error, zero. So no, it is not only DAC that is receiving no
funding. Funding right now for DAC I suspect outweighs funding for
SRM if you include philanthropic.
Also note that you attribute to me “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”. I
don’t think it is possible to demonstrate DAC at Gt scale without
investing in it, so I don’t know how you could read my email and
conclude that I believe we should delay investing in DAC.
doug
From:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Michael
MacCracken
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <[email protected]>; Michael Hayes
<[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; David Keith
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb
Climate Change - Scientific American
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]> 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]> 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]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; David Keith
<[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]> 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]
<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.
--
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.
