FW: [geo] Re: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary
Robert Tulip
Interesting comments on CDR
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:34 AM Hugh Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Robert, thanks for the useful summary. Sounds like David was on good form. Hugh
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:40 PM
To: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary
The recording of this discussion between Dr David Keith and the Healthy Planet Action Coalition is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwvlPQWl8Q
Here is my summary of Professor Keith’s answers to questions.
He began by mentioning his recent move to the University of Chicago to lead a Climate Systems Engineering Initiative. Support from geophysical sciences and other areas includes many faculty wanting to work on this topic including in solar geoengineering, cryosphere, carbon removal, geophysical models and public policy.
The first question was on the relation between solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal. Dr Keith said the risk of CO2 in the atmosphere requires a combination of CDR and SG with decarbonisation and adaptation, but cutting emissions only stops things getting worse. Reducing temperature over centuries is better by CDR, but over decades favours SG regarding costs and risks.
On tipping points, Dr Keith said they exaggerate the science. Most are far in the future and uncertain. The notion of planetary boundaries is profoundly false.
He is extremely keen on field testing of SG. Models have uncertainties that can be studied by observation and experiment.
On a question on CO2 outgassing from the ocean, Dr Keith said models calculate how much CO2 returns to the atmosphere from the ocean when CO2 is removed, with about half emitted CO2 still in the atmosphere.
On carbon capture, Dr Keith said companies can only make money by demonstrated engineering results. He founded a carbon capture company that now has 170 employees.
For SG the problem is different – knowing atmospheric effects by science. The biggest issues are trust and results. Incentives are similar to other social objectives, based on confidence in estimates driven by open science. SG is cheap, needing government and philanthropic funds.
On a question about heat decline after net zero emissions, in view of ocean heat, he said papers on long term warming are available.
He questioned the need to start cooling just at the poles, in view of ratio of sulphur to radiative forcing, impacts, ethics and economics, looking instead to biggest effects on hottest places. Cooling the world with sulphate aerosols can deliver global effects.
He questioned the hysteresis of sea ice, and did not answer a question if we could stabilise the Arctic on a time scale to prevent loss of summer sea ice. Assumptions about time scale vary. He does not see a time scale of years for SG research. There are strong arguments for beginning slow deployment soon, but climate is slow moving. He does not see strong evidence for Antarctic tipping points, and sees a disconnect between climate scientists and student’s views of the climate crisis. Tipping points are vastly over-emphasised. It is easier in social experiments to get agreement when you have a sharp threshold, but climate has a huge spread of uncertainty about non-linearities.
It is hard to detect surface temperature response signal from SG testing, although radiative response can be detected. Uncertainties on radiative forcing, effects of descending aerosols on the upper troposphere, size distribution of particles, chemical effects, organics in aerosols, can be tested for stratospheric response to infer radiative forcing.
He said hearing questions respectfully, explaining facts and separating facts from values can engage people.
A small group oppose SG, but mainstream climate groups are careful in their views and mostly take middle positions. Most support research. It is important not to overstate opposition, in view of strong interest in research. The Non Use Agreement see they are losing out.
The Global Overshoot Commission is the highest level political group ever to engage these topics, with four former heads of government involved. Leader conversations engage high uncertainty, with SG alongside war and epidemic and economic crisis. We will not get international unanimity, but coalitions of countries are plausible for international architecture.
There is no simple answer to the safe CO2 threshold. Saying we want to go back to Holocene CO2 levels is not a widely shared view. The planet can survive with higher CO2. Many differing viewpoints exist, with differing values about the safe CO2 threshold.
Acid rain is proportional to sulphur, which previously had concentrated emissions of one hundred million tonnes, compared to one or two million tonnes of sulphur for SG, clearly indicating acid rain is not a big risk.
The biggest political problems are to get a stable agreement, and that SG will reduce the pressure to cut emissions. Moral hazard is the biggest underlying concern.
On SCOPEX, what happened in Sweden was not a problem with what the Sami said, but that the Swedish Government told the balloon operator to stop, even though it was legal. There is less opportunity in the US for government to stop something that is legal and permitted. The scientific utility has been undersold. The question is of considering a whole set of things to move forward.
The Sami Council strenuously avoided talking to the SCOPEX project. Part of their view was related to mineral exploration disputes with the government. The project sought consultation but was politically outmanoeuvred.
The short life time of methane differs from CO2. Methane contributes to feedback.
Dr Keith provided these answers to audience questions over one hour. The meeting continued for another half hour.
Recording is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwvlPQWl8Q
Regards
Robert Tulip
https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H simmens
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 1:21 AM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [prag] REMINDER HPAC meeting today at 4:30 PM EDT with Dr. David Keith
The Healthy Planet Action Coalition will host a public question and answer session with Dr David Keith, Director of the Harvard University Solar Geoengineering Program.
Meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
Meeting Time: Tuesday 4 April, 4.30pm EDT
Information about Dr Keith: https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith
HPAC is pleased to present this opportunity for conversation with one of the leading climate policy analysts working today.
4.30 pm Tuesday EDT = 6.30 am Wednesday 5thAustralia AEST and 9.30pm Tuesday 4th UK BST.
https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2f0201d967d4%24f0c7bd90%24d25738b0%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/LO4P265MB39018AE86DF67E20E0301B00B0909%40LO4P265MB3901.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CEpvXRauiFDSsY%2BK-42W6rgaeSCLvZVUytyC5tp1QyHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Jim Baird
He says “It is hard to detect surface temperature response signal from SG testing.
Half the Thermodynamic Geoengineering entry to the Musk XPRIZE for CDR is a closed system that proves the surface temperature response. The second half is a ocean going platform that will sequester 1000 tonnes of CDR.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/051001d9690e%24689627f0%2439c277d0%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Robert Chris
Just watched the David Keith recording. Well done to all. Sorry
the time zones kept me away.
The biggest takeaway for me was his position on tipping points. He said:
The idea that we can just know that there's some accurate planetary boundary where we're safe inside and it's dangerous outside, I think is a profoundly false idea. It's one that keeps reoccurring because it's so rhetorically effective. It'd be great if it was true. It doesn't happen to be true [pause for reflection] to our knowledge. I mean I should say that maybe it is true and we're wrong, but there isn't evidence that it is true in a away that's coherent and clear.
This is central because it sets the timescale for action.
Responding to a possible crisis a long way off clearly requires a
different policy regime from one appropriate to an imminent
crisis. Yet again, timing is at the heart of everything. This is
such a fundamental point that so long as the Establishment view
cleaves to it, there is almost no likelihood of any meaningful
progress focussed on dangers perceived by a few rebels to be more
immediate. We need to give more attention to this issue. [Please
don't pick me up on the 'few rebels', it's just a light hearted
comment to try and lift the tone in an otherwise dark narrative.]
This quote also illustrates the conservative precautionary framing evident throughout the IPCC that has been in large measure responsible for it generally being behind the curve. The UNFCCC Constitution Art 3.3 states that the less conservative interpretation of the precautionary principle is to be adopted where serious or irreversible harm is at stake. We might want to reflect on how we can encourage the absence of certainty not to be a reason for not acting when there is a good enough reason to do so. This requires a deep dive into risk management.
The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.
A second takeaway was his summary dismissal of methane removal. His argument was that given it is so short-lived, why bother removing it when you can just let it decay naturally. I think the folk at Methane Action (as was) could put together a credible and well referenced case to identify the climatic benefits of enhanced atmospheric methane removal (EAMO). Daphne Wysham participated in the session, this is something she might want to take on.
A third takeaway was his throwaway question as to whether
reducing CO2 emissions in line with Net Zero by 2050 is a sensible
policy. He made a couple of remarks about the undesirable impact
of steep CO2 emissions abatement. He didn't detail what these
might be but my impression is that he was referring to the
socio-political consequences of any combination of emissions
abatement and GGR that would produce net zero by 2050. My guess
is that his position on Net Zero by 2050 is closely related to his
relaxed view about the imminent dangers of cascading tipping
events, but this is perhaps worth exploring further with him.
A fourth takeaway was his question as to why one would start with
refreezing the Arctic when most climate harm is suffered by those
living in the hottest places, and these disproportionately are
home to the world's poor. It isn't clear to what extent he has
considered the widespread climate consequences of an exponentially
melting cryosphere and the potential these have for harming those
living far from the polar regions. This is a further area that we
might want to consider in more detail as a key objection to be
overcome. There are also some interesting philosophical arguments
at stake here in the manner to which action should be informed by
(broadly) consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics. David
seems to be firmly in the consequentialist camp and that position
is vulnerable to challenge.
Finally, there is the moral hazard point. I totally agree with Brian's comment towards the end of the session, that the MH argument falls away when it is recognised that it is not a matter of choice between GHG and albedo management. The problem is getting people to recognise that they are both necessary and if anything, the albedo enhancement, is the more urgent.
Great session and plenty of good stuff to work on for a follow
up. I particularly like David's suggestion of focussing on a
couple of key points and bringing in another voice or two. For
the me the major benefit of this discussion was the way in which
it has obliged us to reflect on some of our assumptions. That
reflection will make us stronger.
Robert Chris
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/003601d96915%245043ca70%24f0cb5f50%24%40gwmitigation.com.
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Robert -- excellent pull from the UNFCCC on the Precautionary
Principle. This principle is widely used by those with moral
hazard thinking as a reason to NOT do anything other than
emissions reductions. Sierra Club's new climate policies have a
section devoted to "Avoiding
the Moral Hazard."
I want to add some context to the concept of tipping. It is clear
Keith believes as some of the science recites, that tipping is one
big thing that creates a state change of our climate at some point
in the future. Yeah, maybe so; likely so -- but tipping is much
more. Keith's work is profound and very likely to be of very large
importance for saving our world as we know it, but I am confused
by his position on tipping concepts.
Tipping is the climate response to collapsing Earth systems as well as whatever overarching climate bifurcation concepts that exist. Many of our Earth systems have these responses and when activated they can influence the speed and extremeness of other systems tipping responses in a cascade. (Lenton 2019) And as per Lenton 2019, more than half of known tipping systems are now active. So why does a system collapse and what happens when it does so?
When the evolutionary boundary conditions of a system change,
that system collapses so it can re-evolve with new species and
mechanisms that are tolerant of the new boundary conditions. When
this happens, environmental services of the system are first
degraded, then eliminated and often reversed. The results are
natural feedback emissions that compound the warming problem. When
these collapses are rapid, as in forest collapses from acute
events such as fire, drought and insect attack, the responses and
cascades are rapid creating abrupt climate change also known as
climate tipping. Permafrost thaw and arctic sea ice are other
examples of a systems that exhibits tipping responses that can
abruptly affect our climate.
The fundamental truth about systems collapse is of primary
importance to our new era of climate change. This truth is that
once a collapse begins, it does not self-restore unless the
perturbation to the system that caused the collapse to begin is
removed. This is the flaw of our climate culture today that is
based on slow and reticent science and a compromising consensus,
where it is deemed safe to warm further, even when Earth systems
collapses have begun.
So there are myriad climate tipping systems and responses that
contribute nonlinearly to the concept of climate tipping. It is
not one "thing" and a significant body of climate literature as
well as almost all consensus reporting does not yet grasp the
importance of systems collapse -- that once begun do not
self-restore unless our climate is restored to within the
evolutionary boundaries of our Earth's systems.
One further - Hansen's body of work deeply considers Earth
systems evolution and their responses to evolutionary boundary
conditions. This is why he considers 350 ppm CO2 (the upper
boundary of the Holocene) as the upper limit of our previous
climate and the limit that once beyond, if not returned to within
the boundaries of our Earth systems evolution quickly (too long of
an overshoot period), Earth systems collapse with untenable
futures.
My work (the work of my nonprofit) at ClimateDiscovery.org has
been reporting on the primary literature on evolutionary
boundaries and systems collapse with climate change impacts since
we were founded in 2005. In 2007 I began filming and in 2021 we
launched ClimateChangePhoto.org, that chronicles our work
documenting climate change-caused collapse impacts across North
America. If you haven't yet, please visit ClimateChangePhoto.org.
It is complete with explanations of all photos with galleries on
Beach, The Beetles, Fire and Permafrost, and it is
counterintuitively quite beautiful. Even the gallery on fire and
the Paradise and Coffey Park fires: in fire there is rebirth. But
what struck me so profoundly putting this site together was the
beauty in these collapse events across our most treasured
landscapes that are so rare our civilization has never witnessed
them.
Steep trails,
Bruce
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/72563e84-dfab-5492-4fb3-ec842935d66d%40gmail.com.
Robert Chris
Bruce, the process you describe to explain why systems collapse
is, using different language, entirely consistent with complex
adaptive systems theory. If you're not familiar with Gunderson
and Holling's work, and in particular their seminal text Panarchy,
I commend it to you. Amongst many other insights, it allows us to
understand the politics of climate change as an integral part of
the overall system rather than exogenous to it, and also to
understand that while system collapse might be a painful
experience for those caught up in it, it is also part of a
critical continuous process of renewal.
The story of life on Earth has not be one of monotonic progress.
Indeed, the periodic reversals have been central to the emergence
of Homo sapiens. Evolution didn't have to take the path it did.
We are the product of an accumulation of random events that have
selected certain emergent properties for enhancement and
replication in preference to others.
You mention one fundamental truth about system collapse. Another is that once it is set in train it becomes inevitable. There is a tipping point beyond which the powers of adaptation to the changing circumstances are overwhelmed by the forces unleashed in the collapse. When a house of cards starts falling, there's no way to stop it halfway. Unfortunately it isn't possible to know whether that tipping point has been passed other than retrospectively. On climate change we have to assume we can at least minimise the extent of the collapse and perhaps defer it. Not to do so is to surrender our agency. At some point we will be forced to, but we must keep trying until the house of cards is flat on the table. If we get our response to climate change wrong the next major collapse will merely be somewhat sooner than it might otherwise have been. Some might see that as an opportunity in the making.
Now I'm going to look at your website.
Robert
Anderson, Paul
Robert,
Your concluding sentences are worth emphasizing: I read it in reference to the need for Earth Cooling that is nature-based (“ice and clouds”).
On climate change we have to assume we can at least minimise the extent of the collapse and perhaps defer it. Not to do so is to surrender our agency. At some point we will be forced to, but we must keep trying until the house of cards is flat on the table. If we get our response to climate change wrong the next major collapse will merely be somewhat sooner than it might otherwise have been. Some might see that as an opportunity in the making.
It only becomes an opportunity if we can cause some action on all three: decarbonization, carbon removal, and cooling with ice and clouds.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 3:31 AM
To: Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [CDR] FW: [geo] Re: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary - Robert Chris comments
|
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/5238e6f7-8037-8f10-48a5-3527ad632617%40gmail.com.
Ron Baiman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/SA2PR03MB59325732B0E39218D8009AD1DB979%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.