[geo] Special joint AMS session on climate engineering

[David Mitchell]

Last week at the Gordon Conference on Climate Engineering, a special session on 
climate engineering was organized as part of the 98th AMS Annual Meeting in 
Austin Texas.  This is a joint session hosted by the 21st Conference on Planned 
and Inadvertent Weather Modification and the Tenth Symposium on 
Aerosol-Cloud-Climate 
Interactions
 titled "Intentional Climate Intervention: Science, Economics, Ethics, and 
Governance".  Please see the attached announcement for details.  Unfortunately 
the deadline for abstracts is August 8th, but we will enquire into an extension 
(but please submit your abstracts ASAP since an extension might not be granted).

Convened by David Mitchell (Desert Research Institute) and Trude Storelvmo 
(Yale)

We look forward to your abstracts!

David Mitchell
Associate Research Professor
Desert Research Institute
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, Nevada, USA
Phone: 775-674-7039
E-mail: david.mitch...@dri.edu


PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: In accordance with NRS Chapter 239, this email and 
responses, unless otherwise made confidential by law, may be subject to the 
Nevada Public Records laws and may be disclosed to the public upon request.

-- 
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.


AMS 2018 mtg_CE session_announcement.pdf
Description: AMS 2018 mtg_CE session_announcement.pdf

[geo] Climate change will change the way we use our land – Climate Council

[Andrew Lockley]

Irish Farmers Journal 
 /
News 
 /
News 
 /
Climate change will change the way we use our land – Climate Council

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/climate-change-will-change-the-way-we-use-our-land-climate-council-296660
Climate change will change the way we use our land – Climate Council
By Thomas Hubert
 on 28
July 2017

   - 
[image:
   The Climate Change Advisory Council lists peatlands among the carbon sinks
   needed to balance Irish agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions.]
   The Climate Change Advisory Council lists peatlands among the carbon
   sinks needed to balance Irish agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions.

The State's climate change watchdog has urged the Government to boost
research and plan for new ways of allocating land between food and energy
production, and greenhouse gas removal from the air.

While there is an "urgent need" for further research and planning into the
role of Irish agriculture in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, it is
already clear this will involve deep changes in the way land is used across
the nation, the Climate Change Advisory Council has warned.

In its new periodic review report
, the
independent body tasked with advising the Government on climate policy says
Ireland must decide now how its agriculture will achieve the national
objective of "neutrality in the agriculture and land use sector by 2050" –
a point where Irish farms and forests would take as much greenhouse gas
from the atmosphere as they emit.

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but has an
atmospheric lifetime of approximately 12 years

The Council identifies four key areas to work on:
- So-called negative emission technologies
,
which actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Growing biomass
and capturing the gas when it is burned is one option.
- Improving plant breeding, genomics, farm management and technology to
reduce emissions of methane from ruminants and nitrous oxide from
fertiliser. In particular, "research has shown that a switch to
lower-emission fertilisers would be effective in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions," the report states in reference to protected urea

.
- Take account of the differences between greenhouse gases. "For example,
methane

is
a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but has an atmospheric
lifetime of approximately 12 years. Nitrous oxide is more potent than
methane and carbon dioxide, and has an atmospheric lifetime of
approximately 120 years," the council wrote, adding that this should also
provide alternative income opportunities.
- Diversify land use. This could mean switching enterprises or running
several productions on the same piece of land: "Currently, many Irish
farmers are locked into low-income, low-profit farming systems.
Opportunities to provide alternative and more remunerative income
opportunities for these groups may emerge, for example through alternative
uses for grass, and conversion of land to renewable energy and biomass
production," the report suggests. Paying farmers for ecosystem services is
also mentioned. The CAP after 2020
 is identified as the main
policy in this area.

The Climate Advisory Council also highlights the role of forestry in
storing carbon to offset emissions from agriculture in the coming decades.
"The National Forest Policy is to increase forest cover from 11%
(768,000ha) to 18% by 2050. Successful implementation of the plan is
important, and the possibility of greater ambition should be explored," its
members wrote.

*Vulnerable peatlands*

Their report warns that draining and harvesting peaty soils will have to
stop, while existing farmland can be enhanced to store more carbon:
"Organic soils, wetlands and peatlands represent the largest and most
vulnerable stocks of soil carbon in Ireland
.
The treatment of these stocks will be a key factor for achievement of
neutrality for the agriculture and land-use sector."

Managing all these challenges at the same time will require "a
comprehensive land use strategy, with inclusion of all land uses," the
experts conclude.

The 11-member council includes Teagasc director prof 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Florian Rabitz]

To be honest, I don't think there are any policy-making consequences here 
since public attitudes to geoengineering cannot possibly get worse than 
they already are. That being said, the use of "sticky terms" in the broader 
debate is very interesting. I think it was ETC Group that tried to 
popularize "geopiracy" a while back (although that didn't stick quite 
well), some NGOs speak of "climate hacking" and some scholars appear to be 
moving away from the term "solar radiation management" to "albedo 
modification" instead.

Getting back to an earlier point: I do not have a background in the natural 
sciences so I cannot comment on the technical feasibility of parsing out 
the relative effects of different CE techniques that are being deployed 
simultaneously. However, this potentially adds a layer of complexity to 
international governance by enhancing scientific uncertainties and thus 
expanding the scope for governments to declare as authoritative whatever 
explanation aligns with their respective interests. If a CCT / SRM cocktail 
leads to larger-than-expected global precipitation, some governments will 
argue it's due to the strong effect of CCT and others will say it's due to 
the weak effect of SRM (still others might say it's due to factors 
unrelated to either). More uncertainty means more potential for political 
disagreement.

Best,
Florian


On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:08:01 PM UTC+3, Adam Dorr wrote:
>
> In the case of black holes there are no policymaking or governance 
> consequences to using flippant terms, but in the case of "fracking", for 
> example, which was the subject of my PhD dissertation, the term exerted a 
> disproportionately large influence on the discourse. As it happens, 
> "fracking" was an industry term of art and not a pejorative created by 
> opponents of the practice. Some readers here may recall the complications 
> that arose during "Climategate" when Phil Jones wrote, "I've just completed 
> Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 
> 20 years", and the opposition seized upon the word "trick" to very 
> successfully discredit climate scientists and delegitimize climate science 
> in the eyes of the public and policymakers.
>
> Words matter a very great deal. We need to use them with care, or there 
> will be consequences we will regret.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
>
>> Adam
>>
>> Do you refer to "black holes" as "gravitationally completely collapsed 
>> objects"? 
>>
>> Snappy terms stick.
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Adam Dorr  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such 
>>> as "cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or 
>>> "integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely 
>>> to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as 
>>> obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I 
>>> am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that 
>>> addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adam Dorr
>>> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
>>> adam...@ucla.edu 
>>> adam...@gmail.com 
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker >> > wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components 
 on and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate 
 change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by 
 climate 
 change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the 
 internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good 
 introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report: 

 https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html

 Cheers, Christoph

 On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:

 Hi All

 Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components 
 of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for 
 techniques 
 with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different 
 random sequences and correlating the results at different observing 
 stations. 
 Stephen

 On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:

 As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering 
 could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have 
 non-linear 
 impacts.  

 For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with 
 damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging. 
 A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each 
 alone. 

 A

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Adam Dorr]

In the case of black holes there are no policymaking or governance
consequences to using flippant terms, but in the case of "fracking", for
example, which was the subject of my PhD dissertation, the term exerted a
disproportionately large influence on the discourse. As it happens,
"fracking" was an industry term of art and not a pejorative created by
opponents of the practice. Some readers here may recall the complications
that arose during "Climategate" when Phil Jones wrote, "I've just completed
Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last
20 years", and the opposition seized upon the word "trick" to very
successfully discredit climate scientists and delegitimize climate science
in the eyes of the public and policymakers.

Words matter a very great deal. We need to use them with care, or there
will be consequences we will regret.

Best,

Adam

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Adam
>
> Do you refer to "black holes" as "gravitationally completely collapsed
> objects"?
>
> Snappy terms stick.
>
> A
>
> On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Adam Dorr  wrote:
>
>> I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such as
>> "cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or
>> "integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely
>> to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as
>> obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I
>> am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that
>> addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> --
>> Adam Dorr
>> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
>> adamd...@ucla.edu
>> adamd...@gmail.com
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker <
>> christoph.voel...@awi.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on
>>> and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate
>>> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by climate
>>> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the
>>> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good
>>> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:
>>>
>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
>>>
>>> Cheers, Christoph
>>>
>>> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components
>>> of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for techniques
>>> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different
>>> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing
>>> stations.
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
>>> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
>>> impacts.
>>>
>>> For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
>>> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
>>> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
>>> alone.
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz"  wrote:
>>>
 I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
 amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
 the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
 might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
 or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa
 for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
 a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications
 don't look pretty.

 Best,
 Florian

 On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/res
> earchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html
>
 --
 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.

>>> --
>>> 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 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Andrew Lockley]

Adam

Do you refer to "black holes" as "gravitationally completely collapsed
objects"?

Snappy terms stick.

A

On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Adam Dorr  wrote:

> I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such as
> "cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or
> "integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely
> to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as
> obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I
> am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that
> addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
> --
> Adam Dorr
> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
> adamd...@ucla.edu
> adamd...@gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker <
> christoph.voel...@awi.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on
>> and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate
>> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by climate
>> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the
>> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good
>> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:
>>
>> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
>>
>> Cheers, Christoph
>>
>> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components
>> of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for techniques
>> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different
>> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing
>> stations.
>> Stephen
>>
>> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
>> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
>> impacts.
>>
>> For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
>> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
>> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
>> alone.
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz"  wrote:
>>
>>> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
>>> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
>>> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
>>> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
>>> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa
>>> for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
>>> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications
>>> don't look pretty.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Florian
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:


 http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/res
 earchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html

>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Voelker
>> Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
>> Am Handelshafen 12
>> 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
>> e: christoph.voel...@awi.de
>> t: +49 471 4831 1848 <+49%20471%2048311848>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Adam Dorr]

I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such as
"cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or
"integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely
to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as
obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I
am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that
addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on
> and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate
> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by climate
> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the
> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good
> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:
>
> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
>
> Cheers, Christoph
>
> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components of
> a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for techniques
> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different
> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing
> stations.
> Stephen
>
> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
> impacts.
>
> For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
> alone.
>
> A
>
> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz"  wrote:
>
>> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
>> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
>> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
>> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
>> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa
>> for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
>> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications don't
>> look pretty.
>>
>> Best,
>> Florian
>>
>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/res
>>> earchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html
>>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
> --
> Christoph Voelker
> Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
> Am Handelshafen 12
> 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
> e: christoph.voel...@awi.de
> t: +49 471 4831 1848 <+49%20471%2048311848>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Christoph Voelker]

Hi all,

this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on 
and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate 
change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by 
climate change deniers), with the main problem that both require 
knowledge of the internal climate variability on the time scales 
considered. A good introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in 
the 2007 IPCC report:


https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html

Cheers, Christoph


On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:


Hi All

Florian is worried about separating the effects of different 
components of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do 
this for techniques with a high frequency response by turning them on 
and off with different random sequences and correlating the results at 
different observing stations.


Stephen

On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail 
geoengineering could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as 
they may have non-linear impacts.


For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each 
with damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally 
damaging. A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side 
effects that each alone.


A

On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" > wrote:


I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global
precipitation might result either from the effect of CCT being
larger-than-expected
or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice
versa for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would
require
a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance
implications don't look pretty.

Best,
Florian

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:



http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/researchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html



-- 
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
.

--
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.


--
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.


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



--
Christoph Voelker
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Am Handelshafen 12
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
e: christoph.voel...@awi.de
t: +49 471 4831 1848

--
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.

Fwd: Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Stephen Salter]

Christoph

I tested the idea by adding or subtracting 16 different amplitudes of 
temperature change to a real  20-year temperature record and then trying 
to measure each amplitude knowing only the sequences of the changes. I 
did this nine times with results below.  I could not afford a 
thermometer that good.


The idea has been used for a long time by telecommunications engineers 
and tested with a real climate model by Alan Gadian and Ben Parkes from 
the University of Leeds.  Other climate modellers seem reluctant to 
replicate.


Stephen



On 31/07/2017 15:36, Christoph Voelker wrote:


Hi all,

this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components 
on and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of 
climate change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a 
lot by climate change deniers), with the main problem that both 
require knowledge of the internal climate variability on the time 
scales considered. A good introduction to the subject is the chapter 
9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:


https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html

Cheers, Christoph


On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:


Hi All

Florian is worried about separating the effects of different 
components of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do 
this for techniques with a high frequency response by turning them on 
and off with different random sequences and correlating the results 
at different observing stations.


Stephen

On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail 
geoengineering could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as 
they may have non-linear impacts.


For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each 
with damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are 
equally damaging. A combination of the two therefore leads to lower 
side effects that each alone.


A

On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" > wrote:


I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global
precipitation might result either from the effect of CCT being
larger-than-expected
or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice
versa for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this
would require
a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance
implications don't look pretty.

Best,
Florian

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:



http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/researchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html



-- 
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
.

--
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.


--
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.


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



--
Christoph Voelker
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Am Handelshafen 12
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
e:christoph.voel...@awi.de
t: +49 471 4831 1848


--
You received this message 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components 
of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for 
techniques with a high frequency response by turning them on and off 
with different random sequences and correlating the results at different 
observing stations.


Stephen

On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering 
could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have 
non-linear impacts.


For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with 
damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally 
damaging. A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side 
effects that each alone.


A

On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" > wrote:


I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global
precipitation might result either from the effect of CCT being
larger-than-expected
or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice
versa for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would
require
a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance
implications don't look pretty.

Best,
Florian

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:



http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/researchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html



-- 
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
.

--
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.


--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] CLIMEWORKS

[Peter Eisenberger]

The Global Thermostat technology for which I am the CTO has operated plants
at comparable capacity and at lower cost than Climeworks many years ago.
We are currently building our first commercial plant that will be
operational next year at under $100 dollars per tonne,both Capex and Opex ,
and can reach costs of lower than $50 per tonne by our tenth plant due to
straighforward reductions in manufacturing costs.   We have already
demonstrated to independent third party experts our low cost potential.
This has enabled us to get investment and commercial deals so we are in
great shape  commercially since our low cost makes many uses of the CO2 we
capture from the air profitable.

My great personal frustration and concern  is that in spite of our
achievements and claims,  that even a reading of our published  patents
would make clear why we have achieved a breakthrough in cost, the  world
still believes DAC has to be costly. Our claims are largely ignored even
 by DAC  experts like Klaus and David Keith in spite of my many offers to
them to share our information with them .  I claim the properties of our
contactor compared to what others use,  that are well understood,  and the
innovative  process we use to regenerate the CO2 we capture with a standard
sorbent PEI described in our patents,  are enough for experts like them to
understand why our costs are lower than the paths others have pursued. I
want to be very precise in what I am claiming. We do still need to operate
our plants under commercial conditions to claim commercial success. Any
problems that might arise will not be show stoppers and not alter the fact
that our innovative approach has generically identified a low cost approach
to DAC. it is this latter point I am trying to get accepted so we can put
the high cost issue of DAC behind us.

Newspaper stories about the  costs  of Climeworks are accepted without the
independent verifcation by expert third parties that GT technology has been
through. They are discussed in blogs like this which then unfortunately
support the view that DAC is too costly.  I do agree the Climeworks
 efforts should be lauded and not criticized but I also believe that the
DAC community should also note that our approach based on first principles
of higher throughput  and lower capital and lower energy use identified in
our patents provides the basis for low cost DAC . If accepted rather than
ignored it would help get support for others for DAC efforts.  Because the
issue of the cost of DAC is so important we at GT would agree to counter
any claims of conflict of interest not to take any public funding  at this
time. But many others and our ability to address climate change would
benefit if the world knew that low under $50 per tonne DAC is feasible and
a path to achieve it.  I personally hope the future efforts of others will
find other ways to achieve even lower costs because the issue at stake is
so important and the markets so large that we need a DAC  industry. Many
companies will need to be profitable, if we are to meet the challenge of
climate change.

Whether  my pleas continue to go unheeded or not , we at GT will proceed
and when our plant is operational we will make clear that  low costs DAC
has been achieved in practice.  I just am not sure and concerned that the
delay this implies will not come at a high cost which is why I have written
this note.  I apologize in advance to both Klaus and David, who I have the
greatest respect for and whose pioneering work motivated my interest in
DAC,  for going public with my concern and  frustration. I hope they will
understand and we can proceed amicably on a path that is best for the goal
we alll share.


On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> To continue from Klaus' point... Swanson's law notes falling cost of solar
> modules. ~7yrs halving time (balance of system, transmission costs aren't
> falling so fast) - but nevertheless it's a steep fall. The nature of solar
> is that it's likely to be overbuilt, so there's going to be glut of cheap
> power for, well, pretty much anything you want. Making hydrogen,
> desalination, long-distance water pumping, heating swimming pools,
> whatever. DAC could be a use-case, but it still needs a biz model.
>
> Nothing I've seen suggests DAC will be cheaper than throwing rocks in the
> sea.
>
> A
>
> On 30 July 2017 at 21:58, Klaus Lackner  wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure, I just looked up the price of steel it is about $300
>> per ton.  So $60 added for the CO2 would be quite a correction.   Maybe
>> that can be reduced somewhat, but I agree with you that it is significant
>> and if carbon prices are not the same everywhere, this could lead to
>> significant distortions in the market.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, DAC can help here.  Because it sets a global price on carbon in
>> the sense that anyone wanting to fix the problem can do so at this price.
>> Specifically it becomes 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Andrew Lockley]

As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
impacts.

For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
alone.

A

On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz"  wrote:

> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa for
> decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications don't
> look pretty.
>
> Best,
> Florian
>
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/res
>> earchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html
>>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

[geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Florian Rabitz]

I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the amplification 
of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute 
the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation might 
result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa for 
decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications don't 
look pretty.

Best,
Florian

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/researchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html
>

-- 
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.