I think the problem of modelling climate change is more fundamental than
> it is too complex or even how large the biases are.
>
> Our understanding of complex systems like the earth's climate is that
> they involve feedbacks like the melting of the ice caps
> that expose darker surfaces that are
I think the problem of modelling climate change is more fundamental than
it is too complex or even how large the biases are.
Our understanding of complex systems like the earth's climate is that
they involve feedbacks like the melting of the ice caps
that expose darker surfaces that are more adso
w, Keble College
>
> University of Oxford
>
> 64 Banbury Road
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Oxford, OX2 6PN
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN&entry
previous left early
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples
> of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe described
> by Andcrew th
now, so very early forcing down of the temperature as
>> well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over the time it will
>> take to build up and do this in the manner that you focus on.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/18 4:30 PM, Peter Eisenbe
I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the
major players
are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular.
This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments and
Clearly spreading uninformed information about SRM needs to be confronted.
But in doing so we should as scientists not act naive as if we are
surprised that people have fears about
injecting stuff into the air and not react as to transfer their fears into
them being a bad person or generally person
Mark
It is as you say unfortunately true that we do not focus only on what a
paticular approach does but unfortunately also how it is characterized. In
human affairs such approaches result in discriminations of all kinds. It is
truly a sad day to see the science community and the climate policy
a
that is thinking about this subject.
>
> David
>
>
> --
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:47 PM
> *To:* Klaus Lackner
> *Cc:* christopherpreston1...@gmail.com; geoengineering
> *Sub
Klaus
Well said !
Peter
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Klaus Lackner
wrote:
> I get it, and I get that intentions matter. On the other hand, we are
> globally engineering and energy system (rather than a climate system). It
> certainly has in aggregate geo-engineering scale, and also indivi
For me the key thing was for the first time DAC was included . This will
enable a level playing field with CCS (flue) and i predict will result in
finally getting rid of the fantasy of clean coal
(or natural gas for that matter) as both the ecomomic and environmetal
benefits of DAC followed by bene
In the paper
http://www.chichilnisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Energy-Security-Economic-Development-and-Global-Warming-Addressing-short-and-long-term-challenges-2009..pdf
is formalized the relationship between technology development and economics
where the feedback is positive
The more dev
For what it is worth here is my 2 cts
History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
groups, villages
cities , city states , na
). That's 50tn dollars - more if you remove the whole lot.
>
> I, personally, regard spending on that scale as politically undeliverable
> - and possibly economically undeliverable, too.
>
> A
>
> On 18 Jan 2018 02:25, "Peter Eisenberger"
> wrote:
>
>> Doug
ecisions to suggest that we
> know with certainty that this will be possible.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:10 AM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley
> *Cc:*
As I have written frequently our company Global Thermostat has developed a
DAC technology that can at scale have costs under $50 per tonne and which
can be converted into carbon intensive products like carbon fiber ,
plastics and cement at a profit whch will drive their costs down like solar
and w
Thank you all for your thoughtful and constructive comments to what I
wrote. Most importantly they clearly indicated I needed to correct an
understandably reaction to what I wrote. I apologize for creating some
confusion. I of course do support all activities that enable us to live
more harmonious
This further supports my contention that any solution to the excess carbon in
the air
that Involves using a natural process to either remove it or store it will be
found to have
consequences when practiced at the global scale that will make them ineffective
at best
A plausibility argument for
points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
reductions
another amazing example of contorted logic but also how SRM is being used
here but than is used with the poor logic to include CDR
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Lockley
wrote:
> https://www.ethicsandi
I may be mistaken but the revenue is not annual but one time but the effort
needs to go on for hundreds of years to keep the incremental storage of
carbon
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andrew Lockley
wrote:
> Poster's note: This approach seems more politically and economically
> realistic tha
ut that’s a separate discussion.
>
> The idea of SRM is not reason why people haven’t been investing in scaling up
> DAC, the reason is some mix of cost and short-term thinking.
>
> d
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On B
t coming decades will result
> in significant negative consequences. Having you advocate this as well
> would seem to me the way to best unify our perspectives.
>
> Best, Mike
> On 12/3/17 3:06 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>
> Dear Mike ,
> Something stange is going on her
so I don’t
> know how you could read my email and conclude that I believe we should
> delay investing in DAC.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacCracken
> *Sent:* Sunday, D
h effort is needed
> that recognizes the advantages and shortcomings of each type of approach
> and ultimately aims for a program that draws on multiple approaches to deal
> with the rapidly worsening situation.
>
> Best, Mike MacCracken
>
>
> On 12/3/17 2:24 PM, Peter Ei
kely to
> be less risky than allowing a 3C world. Although we don’t actually know
> that today, not without further research. So I’m not sure why you’re so
> vehemently opposed to any further research into SRM… which is how I
> interpret your comments.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than their
transitory impact on climate. Their most significant role is in
replenishing critcal elements to preserve the fertiliity of the soil.
This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact will be of human
efforts to do SRM on
oken=LJ7xrnEo6oZoRNRYgu7btNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NZqUjovChb9EdabCEcR6GuvZkepQXaPwfxVdn3_EQ1onk9bPWOsX7ETCUW7OvjKbM7syCkanNFs4sG07XAXjcx>.
>
>
>
>
> Peter, I think were roughly on the same side.
>
> I think the work you’re doing is terrific.
>
>
>
> Yours,
> David
>
David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern about generally
about the advocacy for SRM
He accepted the framework that we will fail to address the carbon emissions
reduction targets , failed to mention the CDR
option he himself helped pioneer and then pushed off concerns expressed
e prefer having CDR be the dominant approach--for me
> the question is having a comprehensive effort that recognizes what needs to
> get done and what the capabilities are and deployments can be over time.
>
> Mike
>
> On 11/11/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>
> Hi Dou
same
> team, and this isn’t a competition.
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM
> *To:* Greg Rau
> *Cc:* geoen
The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush
Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge
and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least
nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from
knowledge based our politica
I believe the winner take all perspective is highly flawed and is a major
contributor why those of us who share the concern for the climate risk
are not being effective in making our case. The winner take all lanquage is
appropriate for academic and commercial efforts but not for a Manhatten
Proje
Cogenerating DAC and nuclear power if nuclear power produces low cost
electricity where the low temperature heat such facilities struggle to get
rid of
is used to run DAC makes alot of sense. Not sure that their are not lower
cost ways to generate low temperature heat.
By the way something not ment
I agree with this 100%
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Michael MacCracken
wrote:
> A problem at present is that present high-voltage/alternating current
> distribution lines mean that low-cost transmission of electricity is
> limited to a few hundred miles, so one would have to disperse DAC. If
tial that would be fine, because it would have gotten cheaper, and you
> can’t know to begin with which of the different options will win. But you
> picked something that you know can’t compete in the long run and is going
> to be phased out. You learned a dying art. If the owners
17),
> it's game over. We have to do both. I seriously doubt that humans are
> truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast
> (IPCC).
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Eisenberger
> *To:* Andrew Lockley
This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples
of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an
anti technology
orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.
It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to n
e: +41-79-739-5503 <+41%2079%20739%2055%2003>
> jpasz...@c2g2.net | Tw: @jpasztor | Skype: jpasztor
> www.c2g2.net
>
> On 21 Aug 2017, at 09:48, Peter Eisenberger
> wrote:
>
> I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR
> approaches . On
I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR
approaches . One could develop a list of the desireable attributes and a
way to score each CDR approach .
The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the
Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC
ll
>
>
>
> 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
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 scienti
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
