Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Pete Irvine
Lecturer at UCL Earth Sciences focusing on evaluating the potential, limits and risks of solar geoengineering, as well as its broader implications.
2.714
Tweetovi
403
Pratim
1.013
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Pete Irvine proslijedio/la je tweet
C2G 23 h
"To know what people think about Solar Radiation Modification is a first step towards the creation of inclusive SRM governance." A new C2G guest blog post by Masahiro Sugiyama, and Takanobu Kosugi:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine proslijedio/la je tweet
Blaž Gasparini 31. sij
Finally, my last paper from the PhD is out! To what extent can cirrus cloud seeding counteract global warming? We looked at responses of ECHAM-HAM and CESM-CAM5 to the most efficient cirrus seeding strategy we could know of for each of the models.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine proslijedio/la je tweet
Erica Thompson 5 h
Good advice here for remote post-docing. Hey, if anyone's interested in a remote post doc with me, I am definitely up for writing a grant application. Various possibilities. Maths/stats/climate/weather/models/uncertainty/experts/complexity. Email me.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine proslijedio/la je tweet
Rob Bellamy 3. velj
Climate Engineering as a Communication Challenge: Contested Notions of Responsibility Across Expert Arenas of Science and Policy
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @micheltsamados @grumplesiggy
I Found this whole climate course in python by
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DrJaneFlegal @lilifuhr i 6 ostali
Agreed, @ ing you all wasn't appropriate. The article annoyed me and I replied in haste.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @annamariahubert @lilifuhr i 6 ostali
Agreed, I didn't think it through.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
2 new papers on the way. One re-submitted before 9 am and hopefully another submitted later today.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DoskonaleSzare @hausfath @flimsin
very true
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @lilifuhr @boell_stiftung i 6 ostali
Women are under-represented in the field of solar geoengineering but this narrative sidelines them rather than highlighting them, e.g.:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @lilifuhr @boell_stiftung
'“If deployed at scale, SRM could disrupt the monsoons in Asia and cause droughts in Africa, affecting the food and water supplies of two billion people," warns Ribiero' This is not what we are finding in model studies of this idea:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @lilifuhr @boell_stiftung
Nope: 'Projects like SCoPEx are being funded and lobbied by the Fossil Fuel industry....'
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hausfath @flimsin @DoskonaleSzare
Ah, that's good. I've not been so involved in the modeling in this round and the last I heard the 8.5 scenario was used as the core. Unfortunately it is the main GHG scenario in the solar geoengineering modeling effort.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 30. sij
I agree that its worthwhile changing focus from RCP8.5 towards a more realistic BAU case. However, there's a lot of momentum in the system. The core of the AR6 runs and the various MIPs are based on RCP8.5. This means that any transition away from RCP8.5 would take years.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DrJaneFlegal @ezraklein
I thought you covered the issues well and were even-handed. The discussion as a whole makes a great introduction to the broader issues posed by geoengineering.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Great job on the geoengineering podcast ! Going to recommend it to students who want to get a broader understanding of solar geoengineering issues when I cover this in my course.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Peters_Glen
Gotcha. But you you referring to the economic harms that might follow from very rapid transition. What would be a good high-level metric? Stranded asset value? Are there such estimates?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Peters_Glen
I'm a little confused by the use of the term "transition risk" and its framing as being in opposition to "physical risk". Seems like "ambition gap" be a better term for what I think is meant.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @geoengineering1
You'd have to ask Wake, but I think the costs are for building the prototypes and getting the aircraft certified, rather than just producing a design.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Pete Irvine 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @clv101
I'm no aeronautical engineering but I think you'd need different engines and wings to do it. There are a few ER-2s and WB-57s (repurposed spy planes) that can get up to 20 km but they don't build them anymore.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"