Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
. >> I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to >> reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of >> magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to >> find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign >> of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples >> where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). >> >> >> >> In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but >> committing a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I >> think it is premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on >> the assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap. I think “we” ought to >> invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. >> >> >> >> Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full >> >> >> >> doug >> >> >> >> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM >> *To:* Andrew Lockley >> *Cc:* geoengineering >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse >> >> >> >> I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake >> that critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd >> arguments and then generalize >> >> to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list >> but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC >> can be deployed at the scale needed >> >> to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks >> that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of >> the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches >> like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral >> hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the >> extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . >> >> >> >> I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the >> risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to >> attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. >> >> Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the >> "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will >> initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it >> is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the >> currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this >> time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state >> will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim >> scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by >> changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims >> that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with >> scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack >> of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many >> discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of >> giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first >> class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the >> reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly >> responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ >> everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible >> statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. >> >> >> >> I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering >> approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the >> risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above >> arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were >> the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and >> that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to >> design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop >> capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM >> so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause >> great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier
Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley. > com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full > > > > doug > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger > *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM > *To:* Andrew Lockley > *Cc:* geoengineering > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse > > > > I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that > critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments > and then generalize > > to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list > but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC > can be deployed at the scale needed > > to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks > that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of > the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches > like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral > hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the > extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . > > > > I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the > risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to > attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. > > Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the > "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will > initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it > is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the > currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this > time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state > will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim > scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by > changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims > that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with > scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack > of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many > discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of > giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first > class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the > reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly > responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ > everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible > statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. > > > > I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering > approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the > risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above > arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were > the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and > that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to > design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop > capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM > so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause > great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to > be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said > that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help > us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize > our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in > which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. > > > > I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other > have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we > can achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science > is about and we should all commit to doing it. > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley > wrote: > > I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k > > > > Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased) > > - Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to) > factual accuracy > > - Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data > > > > I'm planning a paper on "
Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
I recently started work with the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, and found this paper very useful. Thank you. On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 10:51:14 UTC+1, Jesse Reynolds wrote: > > Andrew, Doug, and fellow geo-ers, > > > > There is indeed much BS (for lack of a more graceful term) in the climate > engineering discourse, especially on the SRM side. The precise nature of > the items of BS vary substantially from being demonstrably false to lacking > appropriate qualifiers. The general causes of such a large quantity of BS > are that (1) much of empirical data underlying is noisy, and one can > (consciously or unconsciously) select data points in order to draw > conclusions that differ significantly from the average yet are still > supported by empirical evidence; and (2) many of the issues are inherently > speculative, yet those who make claims too often fail both to make their > underlying assumptions explicit and to examine the likelihood of these > assumptions. > > > > Andy Parker, Pete Irvine, and I critiqued five common claims in the SRM > discourse “that are unsupported by existing evidence, unlikely to occur, or > greatly exaggerated.” This was published in the special issue of Earth’s > Future last fall, and is attached here for your convenience. There are > indeed other items of BS that warrant a critique, but these could not be > addressed in our brief paper, usually because substantially nuance would be > needed in a critique. > > > > Cheers > > Jesse > > *Dr. Jesse Reynolds* | Postdoctoral Researcher and Research Funding > Coordinator | Institute for Jurisprudence, Constitutional and > Administrative Law | Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability > Law | Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance | Utrecht University | > Achter Sint Pieter 200 | 3512 HT Utrecht | The Netherlands | +31 (0) 30 > 253 7086 | j.l.reyno...@uu.nl | www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/ > | jessereynolds.org | Available on Mon., Tues., Thurs., Fri. > > My latest publication: “Climate Engineering, Law, and Regulation > <http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199680832-e-71>” > > in *The Oxford Handbook on the Law and Regulation of Technology* > > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > geoengi...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Douglas > MacMartin > *Sent:* Sunday, August 6, 2017 14:38 > *To:* peter.ei...@gmail.com ; 'Andrew Lockley' < > andrew@gmail.com > > *Cc:* 'geoengineering' > > *Subject:* RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse > > > > I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know > today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale. > I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to > reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of > magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to > find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign > of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples > where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). > > > > In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing > a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is > premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the > assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap. I think “we” ought to > invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. > > > > Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full > > > > doug > > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [ > mailto:geo...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Peter > Eisenberger > *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM > *To:* Andrew Lockley > > *Cc:* geoengineering > > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse > > > > I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that > critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments > and then generalize > > to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list > but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC > can be deployed at the scale needed > > to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks > that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of > the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches > like SRM. Non scientific statements
RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
Andrew,BECCS can be deployed at scale with the Allam Cycle: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power. I've been watching this technology move from lab to pilot scale (25MW output) for a couple years.We know we can make enough biogas from anaerobic digestion of seaweed to produce 100% of global energy (~600 quads by 2030). See authors' version of peer-reviewed publications at the bottom of http://oceanforesters.org/Ocean_Forests.html.The first few Allam Cycle power plants will use natural gas (or biogas) in order to ensure there are no particulates in the supercritical fluid. As the technology is refined, it could burn anything.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse From: "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> Date: Sun, August 06, 2017 5:38 am To: <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>, "'Andrew Lockley'" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Cc: "'geoengineering'" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale. I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap. I think “we” ought to invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter EisenbergerSent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AMTo: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments and then generalize to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be deployed at the scale needed to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be
RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale. I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap. I think “we” ought to invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM To: Andrew Lockley Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments and then generalize to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be deployed at the scale needed to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can achieve independent of what that turns
Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments and then generalize to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be deployed at the scale needed to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science is about and we should all commit to doing it. On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k > > Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased) > - Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to) > factual accuracy > - Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data > > I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse". > > I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our > field. I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more > examples, and any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit > arguments. I've listed advocates of the arguments, where these are > top-of-mind > - Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics > - Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation > - Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris > - Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM > - DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?) > - SRM will cause monsoon failure > - SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying > - Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer) > - Moral hazard exists in the form conventionally
