clear that I completely agree with David
Keith that mitigation is the solution to the global warming problem and we
have to work urgently to switch our energy system away from fossil fuels,
that we need much more research on solar geoengineering, and that we should
not ever do solar
I don’t normally monitor this group but someone suggest that respond to
this comment so here goes…
1. Di Marco is entirely correct that we can’t make fuels that are precisely
carbon neutral with the gas-fired system. Our estimate is that fuels made
using that system would have WTW carbon
.
Yours,
David
N.B., I am not subscribed to this list so please email me or post on
twitter if you want to continue the conversation.
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 11:34:14 UTC-5, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>
> David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern about
>
eeting to be held in 2017.
Happy New Year,
David
*David Keith*
Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS); and,
Professor of Public Policy,
Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University
david_ke...@harva
aerosols *might* be able to reduce some environmental risks:
ozone, diffuse light, and heating of the lower stratosphere. I showed figures
from the work in my longnow talk:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/
Joshua B. Horton, Andrew Parker, and David Keith. (2015
aerosols *might* be able to reduce some environmental risks:
ozone, diffuse light, and heating of the lower stratosphere. I showed figures
from the work in my longnow talk:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/
Joshua B. Horton, Andrew Parker, and David Keith. (2015
Here's a new(ish) paper and related talk:
David W. Keith and Douglas G. MacMartin. (2015) A temporary, moderate and
responsive scenario for solar geoengineering
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/174.Keith.MacMartin.ATemporaryModerateandResponsiveScenarioforSolarGeoengineering.pdf
.
at the
Kennedys school. Let me know if you are interested.
I am also funding researchers who want to visit for a few weeks. We expect
to host an overlapping set of visitors working on solar geoengineering in
May-June 2015.
David
David Keith
Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics
, November 26, 2012 7:08 AM
To: David Keith; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Your Vector diagram
David
I remember the excellent vector diagram lecture you gave at Oxford. In it you
represented temperature and precipitation on a vector.diagram and showed that
both cannot be simultaneously corrected
) and
therefore all but irrelevant.
David
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:52 PM
To: geoengineering; David Keith
Subject: [geo] Cost analysis of stratospheric
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:30 AM
To: David Keith
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery
systems (ERL) Open Access
David
Thanks for your reply.
For the avoidance
Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:01 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] David Keith New Mexico experiment, press reaction
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon?cat=environmenttype=article
US geoengineers to spray sun
Folks
My error. Looking through my records I find that I did talk with Martin Lukacs
when he called reporting a story for the Toronto Star.
The story is erroneous in the ways I described below, but I was in error in
saying that I never talked to Lukacs.
David
From: David Keith
Sent: Tuesday
Juan B Moreno-Cruz and David W Keith. (2012). Climate Policy under Uncertainty:
A Case for Geoengineering. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0487-4.
Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/l824m4unw0472803/fulltext.pdf
N.B., Almost all my papers are available at
Andrew
Dipping into this list after a long time ignoring it.
You asked: One thing which I personally am currently unclear on is the optimal
microscale mixing ratios required. Has anyone considered the effect of a dense
injection regime, e.g. a balloon or slurry pipe, versus a distributed
Folks
I am not getting this, and yet I am close to it. My office is down the hall
from the GEOS-Chem group that produced these papers. We collaborate in that
Debra Weisenstein works with me and with that group is doing modeling for
geoengineering and looking into improvements to the GEOS-Chem
Agreed with John here.
Why was this posted at all? Given (a) that conventional aircraft engines can
get sulfate and other aerosols to altitudes above 20 km, and that (b) both
models and basic understanding of stratospheric circulation suggests this is a
sufficient altitude.
This list would be
To: Mike MacCracken
Cc: P. Wadhams; Nathan Currier; Geoengineering; Andrew Lockley;
john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk; Govindasamy Bala; Veli Albert Kallio; David
Keith; v.ga...@open.ac.uk; John Nissen; Peter R Carter; Gary Houser; Anthony
Cook; Graham Innes; PaulHenry Beckwith; Brian Orr; JON HUGHES
approach to trying to limit global climate
change, and, as David Keith says, studies indicate that these cool the polar
regions, though perhaps not in the stratosphere.
Your cloud brightening approach is also to limit global warming. I'd also
suggest that we could offset some of the global
, the lifetime is 1-2 years.
The aerosols do move poleward and are carried into the troposphere in mid
and high latitudes. This is one approach to trying to limit global climate
change, and, as David Keith says, studies indicate that these cool the polar
regions, though perhaps not in the stratosphere
John
Do you have a physically based model that backs up these about collapse and
quadrupling of warming rate?
If so, please let us see it.
If not, please consider either retracting these claims or finding a way to make
clear the level of uncertainty involved.
We have a climate problem and a
Steven
I am in favor of serious research on both strat aerosols and sea salt CCN.
Your comments suggest that you already know the outcome of that research. You
may of course be correct, and in many ways I hope you are. I, however, see less
basis for certainty.
A few facts that seem relevant:
Some simple math:
Global sulfur emissions into troposphere are about 50 Mt-S per year and they
have a direct radiative forcing of about -0.4 Wm^-2.
These same sulfate aerosols kill about 1 million people per year.
Of course current emissions are concentrated where people are you the ratio of
Strongly agree.
My experience talking with chemtrails folks a good fraction are positive and
well intentioned, and a quite small fraction are hostile.
Here is a video that a group of chemtrails folks took and posted when they came
to talk with me. You get a good sense of the range concerns:
Charlie
I doubt this will happen.
The correlation between costs of real hardware and what's citable is very week.
I could find you academic cites for the cost of solar, nuclear or CCS that
varied by an order of magnitude, but that does not mean the actual cost right
now in a real location
The answer to Ken's rhetorical question is a qualified yes, if you ignore
kinetics and assume you are looking only at the CO2 capture, desorption,
clean-up and compression as he described then you can do it for pennies a kg of
CO2 which is pennies per kWh. It's a yes because posed this way,
- Original Message -
From: Josh Horton [mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 03:20 PM
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Occupy Wall Street Goes After Geoengineering
Hi everyone,
Whatever your views, it was only a matter of
Greg et al
There are a number of reasons why white roofs might cause heating that are well
explained in the paper. Among them local suppression of convection and the
correlation between where the roofs are and absorbing dust particles. The roofs
we plan to whiten tend to be in places with
.
Suspicious? The reality of course is nothing so clear. The paper is authored by
geoengineering advocate (and commercial geoengineer) David Keith and 2 other
authors - one of whom is Keith's Doctoral student. While the press release
claims as its headline that 72% of those interviewed support
: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:22 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala; David Keith; Ken Caldeira
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
Dear David--I was going to ask
Folks
Earlier comments on this thread contained lots of speculation about what people
think about SRM/geo.
We recently submitted a paper that has some of the first results from a
high-quality surveys of public perception. (Where for a survey,
high-quality=that is big numbers, good demographic
Responding to a VERY old thread on wind power:
The only link to geoengineering here is that there is a possibility of
manipulating wind turbine drag for weather control, see:
At 10's TW scale extraction of wind does begin to be constrained by the
generation of kinetic energy. I led the a joint
; rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith
Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency
strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of
1 W/m^2
Several recent posts have referred to the American Physical Society's report on
Air Capture.
We posted a critique of the report and in turn the APS released an updated
version that-using a post-facto kluge-addressed two of the errors that had
identified.
The our comments are posted on
, 6:33 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on
geoengineering in Peru this summer.
The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some length
at that meeting.
My views are pretty well aligned
Marty,
Thanks for this gracious response.
Sometimes, not often, I miss being back in physics.
Cheers,
D
From: Marty Hoffert [mailto:marty.hoff...@nyu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:11 AM
To: David Keith
Cc: z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; James Rhodes
Subject
a review of the status cofire
technology by Allen Robinson a colleague at CMU who is a combustion expert.
N.B., this paper has an error in one of the axis labels of the final figure.
Jamie: if you're reading please double check that we have a corrected version
up.
126. Jamie Rhodes and David
this uncertainty can readily exceed several trillion US
dollars over the next 100 years, providing a strong argument for a research
program.
David Keith
Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment
www.ucalgary.ca/~keithhttp://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith
ke...@ucalgary.camailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca
(403
Margaret,
The board statement clarifies the goals of CRF. These goals seem admirable and
entirely appropriate for an organization sponsoring a meeting like Asilomar.
For my part, they answer the questions central I raised in my correspondence
with Joe Romm.
This relieves my concerns about
Institutions of this kind of work well when there are a large group of
experts who share roughly similar expertise and when the group acts
primarily as a value-neutral way to advance the discipline.
We are not remotely close to that stage for geoengineering.
If created now such a group
/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
Greg,
To me it's just the common definition; I did not intend to say anything
about relative merits. The topic was air capture and that seem enough
for one
To: David Keith
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Prof. Klaus Lackner + air capture demo at AGU in SF
Having read your overview in Science now, please disregard my second
question about cost.
I'd re-frame the first question as:
If government funding is made available
Here are notes on a three recent meetings
1. Video's and slides of the October 30th MIT symposium are here:
eathttp://web.mit.edu/esi/symposia/symposium-2009/symposium2009-presenta
tions.html
2. There was a two day meeting at Max Planck Hamburg 25 and 26th
November. See attached
Even where this not a joke, there is a problem. When I first got
interested in this topic about 1990 one of the first things I did was
look at the NAS estimates about orbiting mirrors or scatters. Problem is
if you use mass-efficient scatterers they are rapidly blown out of orbit
by light
Greg
GWP's by design ignore all climate impacts beyond 100 years.
This has real consequences as it makes methane look relatively more
important that it should be, and it also overweight's the beneficial
impacts of biomass sequestration in some calculations.
While some traditional
just a statement that you don't need to overdo the idea of tipping
points to see this.
Yours,
David
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: November 2, 2009 4:10 PM
To: David Keith
I think the idea that fossil resources will provide a meaningful constraint on
CO2 emissions does not pass a fact checker's laugh test. We have enough carbon
within the growing reach or our extraction technologies to push CO2
concentrations beyond 5,000 towards 10,000 ppm.
For my own
My two bits into this interesting debate:
On the temperature rebound. As Ken says, there is no question that the
temperature rebound is real. Simple physics tells you it should be
there, and this is confirmed by experiments with at least three
different GCMs.
The question is: is it a bug or a
Greg,
Let me push back a bit. I absolutely agree that experiments are crucial and
that by working our way up in experimental scale we will learn more and
therefore reduce risk. While we did not say this as clearly in the RS report as
we might have, and not as clearly as in Novim, I don't
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/090901.htm
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: September 3, 2009 7:58 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Fwd: costs of air capture - Royal Society report
on behalf of Roger Pielke Jr
[ In brief reply: With David Keith as co-author of the report, we relied
Diana,
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe deeply in the virtues of
transparency and honesty in debating matters as important as this. I
welcome skepticism about geoengineering.
However, the disconnect between your press release and what is actually
being suggested by the Royal Society
of the symposium. Additional speakers include
David Keith from the University of Calgary and Phillip Duffy from
Climate Central, Inc.
The researchers will present their results in:
Symposium 21 - The Environmental Effects of Geoengineering
Thursday, August 6, 2009, 1:30 PM-5:00 PM
Pecos room
A few comments.
1. Am CCing my colleague Jim Corbett, who wrote a bunch of the
important papers on emissions from shipping, is an author of the latest
paper mentioned her, and as worked with the IMO on this. Jim: any
discussion on this tradeoff at IMO?
2. Some ships already dual
David
While there is legitimate and sensible argument about how much warming
we might get from anthropogenic CO2, I think the overall physics and
atmospheric science linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the
expectation of increased warming is as solid as about anything in
science. The set of
...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Caldeira
Sent: May 3, 2009 10:29 PM
To: David Schnare
Cc: David Keith; ronald.da...@earthlink.net; ds...@yahoo.com;
geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Televised debate
The report to Johnson is available at:
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE
, 2009 4:59 PM
To: David Keith
Subject: McClean's article --geoengineering!
Hello,
After reading the article ,i cannot believe that you can lie like
this come on, thousands of people know that planes have been
spraying polymars,mold inhibiters,aluminum,barium and titanium which was
started
Alan
You imply a geoengineered Pinatubo would reduce crop productivity in a
high-CO2 world.
Can you provide some argument to support the case?
It's true that because of change in surface energy balance you reduce
precip more than temps, so that if temps are back to pre-industrial mean
the
1. Space tethers are physics fun, but practical systems require
unobtainium. No materials are close to being strong enough to make them
interesting; indeed one can make an argument based on the strength of
chemical bonds that no such material is possible.
2. Tethered balloons are
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, David Keith wrote:
I think this issue is grossly overhyped
1. It only matters for concentrating solar.
It matters much more for concentrating solar, but proposals for many new
systems emphasize concentrating solar, because it is more efficient
[mailto:euggor...@comcast.net]
Sent: March 24, 2009 10:17 AM
To: David Keith; 'Geoengineering FIPC'
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: a very simply way to lift sulfur
Why isn't the focus on whether the thing works without producing too
much acid rain or snow or other unanticipated negative effects
I think this issue is grossly overhyped
1. It only matters for concentrating solar.
2. In a case for we really were in a bad enough state to be geoengineering
is not clear that the loss of solar output would be that big a deal when you
really balance the overall costs and risks.
62 matches
Mail list logo
