i
ChatGPT Email Summaries
|
(If you have problems, suggestion, etc. please contact info@noac.info)
|
|
|
|
Instructions/About |
Emails from four Google Groups (carbondioxideremoval,healthy-planet-action-coalition, and noac-meetings, and planetary-restoration) are summarized by ChatGPT
and attachments are made available for downloading and/or viewing. The earliest emails are from January 2022, but not all emails since then are included.
-
Emails are added daily about 5:00 AM Eastern time.
-
Emails with the same subject are grouped to together for Chat GPT to summarize
-
Emails with less than 500 characters are not summarized by Chat GPT
-
Chat GPT has a limit of about 30,000 characters, so emails with more than around 25,000 characters will divided into two more "summaries".
-
Click on a "Subject" to see the original emails with the subject (shown in date order)
-
"Hover" over a "Subject" to display the first 1,000 characters of the Chat GPT summary
-
Click the "Down Arrow" to display the entire Chat GPT summary. If the "Show Email" checkbox is checked both the Chat GPT summary and the original email will be displayed.
If the "Show Attachments" checkbox is checked links to the attached documents and "thumbnails" of attached images will be also be displayed.
(Note that separate menu options are provided to list links to the attached documents and to view the attached images.)
-
Please email info@overshot.org if you have any suggestions on improving this site.
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Search
|
Basic Search
|
|
|
|
| Subject (Click to display the original email in another tab.) | Group | #Emails | From Date | To Date |
|---|
|
|
|
| (Australia) 'Widespread noncompliance and poor performance' in world's largest nature-based carbon removal projectsOct 12 2024 2:18PM - Renaud de RICHTER
Andrew Macintosh et al, Non-compliance and under-performance in Australian human-induced regeneration projects, The Rangeland Journal (2024). DOI: 10.1071/RJ24024
phys.org /news/2024-10-widespread-noncompliance-poor-world-largest.html
'Widespread noncompliance and poor performance' in world's largest nature-based carbon removal projects
Australian National University 11/10/2024
_____
https://phys.org/archive/11-10-2024/
One of the largest types of carbon offset projects the Australian government is using to meet climate change targets and reduce carbon in the atmosphere is failing to do so, new research has shown. The findings are published in The Rangeland Journal.
The projects aim to regenerate native forests across large parts of Australia
but analysis shows most of the selected areas have never had forests, are unsuitable for forest regeneration and are not producing the increase in tree canopy cover that projects are being credited for.
Australian human-induced forest regeneration (HIR) projects are the largest pure carbon removal nature-based offset type in the world. They are supposed to be regenerating permanent
even-aged native forests across millions of hectares of Australia's dry outback, primarily by reducing grazing pressure from livestock and feral animals.
The projects cover 42 million hectares—an area significantly larger than Japan—and, to date, they have received more than 45 million Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) (30% of all ACCUs issued under the Australian carbon offset scheme), worth approximately $1 billion.
New research conducted by 10 leading researchers from The Australian National University (ANU), University of New South Wales (UNSW) and Haizea Analytics has found extreme levels of non-compliance with key regulatory requirements in 116 of these human-induced regeneration (HIR) projects, and that the projects have had little impact on tree cover and carbon sequestration.
The study applied tests for regulatory compliance in line with the legal requirements of the HIR method and the Clean Energy Regulator's own guidelines, which involved dividing the credited areas of the projects into 100-hectare cells (35,362 cells) and analyzing each cell.
To assess whether projects resulted in additional increases in tree cover that would not have otherwise occurred, each cell was matched to a 100-hectare cell from the surrounding landscape, outside of the project areas, and statistical analysis was conducted to determine whether the project cells outperformed the matched cell.
The researchers conducted their analysis using the same remotely sensed imagery that was applied in a recent verification report commissioned by the Clean Energy Regulator.
Results include
Contrary to the legal method requirements, 95% of credited area cells are located on land that has not previously been comprehensively cleared, meaning the projects are trying to regenerate native forests on uncleared land which may have never contained forests.
Contrary to the legal method requirements, 29% of credited area cells had forest cover when the projects started, meaning they are trying to regenerate native forests on land that already had forest cover when the projects began. In 41 projects (35% of the sample), more than 50 % of their cells did not satisfy the requirements to exclude forested areas.
Some 45% of credited area cells did not satisfy the remote imagery components of the Clean Energy Regulator's first regeneration gateway check, which is supposed to provide assurance regeneration is occurring.
This is particularly alarming because the regeneration gateway checks are lenient, allowing projects to pass the test based on pre-existing tree cover, even if tree cover has not increased. The analysis also occurred at the end of a rare run of three consecutive wet years (2020–23), when canopy cover will naturally be higher than usual.
The analysis of relative performance between credited cells and matched external cells found the projects had an overall statistically significant but small positive impact on canopy cover that was not commensurate with how the projects have been credited.
There is a very large disparity between the levels of credited sequestration and the observed levels of canopy cover change. Based on the levels of credited sequestration, the average minimum expected level of canopy cover across the projects in 2023 was 30%. Yet average canopy cover in the credited area of the projects in 2023 was only 13%.
The gap between observed and credited canopy cover change appears to be too large to be explained by known issues with satellite-based canopy cover estimates.
The findings confirm and expand upon the results from a study published earlier this year in Communications Earth & Environment.
Dr. Megan Evans from UNSW Canberra, stated that the findings highlight a significant missed opportunity to restore previously cleared biodiversity-rich woodlands and forests via legitimate carbon offset projects.
"A decade ago, there was great hope that carbon markets could cost-effectively restore biodiversity where it has been destroyed by clearing, largely in Australia's agricultural zones.
"Now, we're seeing that 95% of the places being paid to restore forests occur in largely remote inland areas that have never actually been cleared of forests. Our new findings point to such huge failures that it's almost beyond belief. Unfortunately, we expect that government and industry will simply respond by saying we've got it wrong, we've used the wrong data, and continue to deny there is a problem."
Professor Don Butler from ANU said the results point to major administrative failings in Australia's carbon credit scheme. "Consistent with our previous research, our new findings suggest the observed changes in tree cover are predominantly attributable to factors other than the project activities, most likely rainfall.
"The Clean Energy Regulator's administration of Australia's carbon credit scheme has let us all down terribly. They have allowed these projects to proliferate in areas where the method was never intended to apply. They've used hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to build a house of cards that is enabling climate inaction and will render the Safeguard Mechanism ineffective. The failure of this scheme will only become more obvious as time goes on."
Dr. Kristen Hunter (UNSW) and Dr. Maldwyn Evans (ANU) led the statistical analysis. "While approximately half of the sampled projects had a small statistically significant positive effect relative to comparison areas, the other half had either a statistically significant negative effect, or no effect. Whether a project had a positive statistical effect essentially amounts to flipping a coin," Dr. Evans emphasized.
Dr. Hunter added, "Crucially, a positive statistical effect doesn't necessarily equate to good project performance. We found the amount of carbon sequestration credited to the projects did not correspond to actual changes in tree cover.
More information: Andrew Macintosh et al, Non-compliance and under-performance in Australian human-induced regeneration projects, The Rangeland Journal (2024). DOI: 10.1071/RJ24024
_____
Explore further
Forest regeneration projects failing to offset carbon emissions
_____
--
|
|
|
|
|
| A re-engineered salt water mist spraying systemOct 5 2024 1:31AM - J GOODWIN
Dear Restorers,
I'll take a guess that planetary-restoration@googlegroups.comhas been shut down for a year. Perhaps your group has migrated to somewhere in Facebook.
My focus today isn't on a political decision of whether or not a fleet of 1000 ships should be deployed to spray salt water mist into the atmosphere. My engineering focus sets aside the various social and environmental questions about trying this scheme. I only want to know how to do this same job more cost-efficiently.
To this end, you may want to know that I have designed a salt water mist particle spraying barge, sketched out on my own website at https://klinkmansolar.com/ktrees.htm#S4b
. My mister buoy is entirely self-contained in terms of energy use. As designed, it has no fuel on board. My goal is to efficiently add an appropriate mass of seawater mist particles per second into a tall, wide cross section of trade wind that blows past the floating buoy.
You need to hear that my buoy has been optimized to perform a different task than the creation of airborne sea salt particles. I want to add serious amounts of humidity to the local atmosphere in certain climates. For example, adding humidity to the atmosphere offshore from Chile, with trade winds blowing that newly humidified air up a 6000 meter mountain, will help to restore mountain glaciers on the mountain peaks. That said, if your goal is to create airborne microscopic sea salt particles then you'd simply need to drill smaller diameter nozzles into every spray dispersion pipe.
To tow the buoys across the ocean to and from a maintenance port, I also have a zero fuel tugboat at https://klinkmansolar.com/kships.htm#O1
.
Yours in Hope,
Paul Klinkman
Ships - Klinkman Solar
Trees - Klinkman Solar
--
Oct 6 2024 6:42AM - robert@rtulip.net
Hi Paul, the Planetary Restoration google group is still operating. Also members of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition would be interested in your design.
You can join PRAG at https://groups.google.com/g/planetary-restoration/members
Regards
Robert Tulip
Oct 6 2024 8:27AM - Tom Goreau
Very interesting, good luck!
But trade winds blow AWAY from Chile, not towards it.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
goreau@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
Oct 6 2024 8:55PM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Paul--Regarding your (or any) proposal for humidifying the air, what is it that makes you think the air will retain the moisture? The air is blowing over the ocean with long fetches and this provides plenty of opportunity for all the evaporation that the air will hold. Also, the ocean water temperature provides a limit on the evaporation as well. Unless there is warm dry air going over cold water, I would not think misting would work, and it would not work long because the air would cool. And if there is a deficiency in the humidity (say in the descending air in the subtropics), adding the humidity would be offset by less evaporation further downwind over the ocean. Basically, the atmospheric humidity is determined mainly by the atmospheric circulation--it may be that the air gets warmed inland so could hold more moisture, but this would be after it warms. Even if one has a mechanism for doing it, I would think more attention needs to be paid to whether the humidification of the air will really work.
Now, if the intent is to get more CCN into clean air, that is a separate question and misters could likely add CCN. The problem is that for MCB to actually work one has to be careful not to overseed the air, so for that to work one needs to know local conditions on a continuing basis. That requires also having monitoring systems, and then determining if there is a need for more CCN to get clouds.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Oct 6 2024 8:55AM - EDT, Michael MacCracken
> Dear Paul--Regarding your (or any) proposal for humidifying
> the air, what is it that makes you think the air will retain the
> moisture? The air is blowing over the ocean with long fetches
> and this provides plenty of opportunity for all the evaporation
> that the air will hold.
Also, the ocean water temperature provides a limit on the evaporation as well. Unless there is warm dry air going over cold water, I would not think misting would work, and it would not work long because the air would cool. And if there is a deficiency in the humidity (say in the descending air in the subtropics), adding the humidity would be offset by less evaporation further downwind over the ocean. Basically, the atmospheric humidity is determined mainly by the atmospheric circulation--it may be that the air gets warmed inland so could hold more moisture, but this would be after it warms. Even if one has a mechanism for doing it, I would think more attention needs to be paid to whether the humidification of the air will really work.
...
Best, Mike MacCracken
Oct 12 2024 8:00PM - J GOODWIN
Hi Restorers,
I'm going to deal with a number of basic questions about atmospheric humidification that people have sent me.
Question: In which directions do the trade winds blow onto Chile or off of Chile?
Chile is an extremely long country. At Tierra Del Fuego, 54 degrees south longitude, the trade winds and the storms blow from west to east. Near the equator the trade winds blow from east to west, and the questioner was undoubtedly thinking of humidifying this particular section of Chile. In the middle the wind direction can shift from day to day. Also, onshore breezes tend to develop near shores in the afternoons because the air near the heated earth's surface onshore tends to want to rise.
I can imagine a great number of other places where a river of dry air often blows from salt water onto arid land. The American Southwest and Mexico are pretty starved for fresh water at this time, with fear of a coming megadrought and of the deaths of many ancient redwood trees. Some researchers want to restore the Sinai peninsula, which is surrounded on the southeast and southwest by the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. Ethiopia looks rather dry these days. The Persian Gulf is surrounded by arid lands, all of which could use some extra humidity and rainfall. India has a dry monsoon season. Adding spring snowfall to Greenland or to parts of Antarctica would cover the extremely thin dark soot surface layer that has been absorbing solar heat lately, where the soot is contributing to the melting of the ice sheets.
One tool that I use to force a current of humid air to the peak of one particular mountain is a mountain slope air tube running up the mountain slope. In the 19th century a Vermont copper smelter built a hillside slope chimney out of slate to channel toxic copper smelting fumes out of a valley. For some applications I envision a tube with a huge cross-section for massive airflow up the mountain slope. This would deliver huge amounts of water vapor to a spot in the stratosphere above a mountain peak. Not a small amount of fresh water will condense out of the humid air stream on the way up.
Humid air has less mass per mole of molecules than dry air. You can look at the chemistry. A mole of H20 vapor masses 18 grams, 16 grams for the one oxygen atom and 1 gram each for the two hydrogen atoms. Dry air is 78% nitrogen, 28 grams per mole for its two nitrogen atoms, and about 20% oxygen, 32 grams per mole.
Bottom line, extremely moist, warm air rises like crazy compared to dry, cool air, which sinks. Hurricanes don't undergo rapid intensification without some powerful physics behind the scenes.
Question: The air is blowing over the ocean with long fetches and this provides plenty of opportunity for all the evaporation that the air will hold.
The atmosphere blowing across the ocean is several kilometers high. I don't doubt that the bottom one meter of atmosphere blowing laterally across the ocean gets rather humid, but does this humidification get evenly stirred into the atmosphere all the way up to the jet stream?
Also, moist parts of the airstream blow toward the poles, setting off rainstorms near dry air fronts ("near cold fronts" is rather less accurate than saying "near dry air fronts"), and then other dry parts of the airstream blow toward the equator. The trade wind airstream coming from the Sahara Desert to the mid-Atlantic is typically bone-dry and full of dust from Saharan dust storms. This dry, dusty air mass often acts as an extreme deterrent to the formation of hurricanes in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Typically dry Saharan air can get halfway across the Atlantic without becoming particularly humidified. The geological record shows dry Saharan dust concentrations in U.S. lake bottom core samples during certain periods, so yes, a mass of dry air can cross an ocean without getting that moist.
It turns out that equatorial jungles put far more humidity into the air than does the equatorial ocean. Jungles can transpire an enormous amount of water vapor per square kilometer of jungle. This has something to do with the total surface area of all the leaves in the forest versus a rather flat ocean surface touching a rather flat and undisturbed bottom of the atmosphere. Parts of the Amazon basin can see 3 meters of rainfall a year because all of these plants are thoroughly humidifying the bottom 30 meters of the atmosphere. Then huge thermals transport blobs of the warm, extremely humid air into the upper troposphere, where reduced air pressure cools the air, which causes precipitation, which moves latent heat into the air, which causes the wet thermals to explode upward into the stratosphere and create thunderclouds in the Amazon.
So, it might help to steadily humidify a cross-section of the bottom 30 meters of the airflow coming onshore, not just the bottom one millimeter of the airflow that often touches the ocean surface.
Question: Also, the ocean water temperature provides a limit on the evaporation as well. Unless there is warm dry air going over cold water, I would not think misting would work, and it would not work long because the air would cool.
With dry air, the air's low humidity means that lots of evaporation can take place even if the air above the ocean is the same temperature as the ocean surface. Perhaps there will be a very few days when near-zero humidification might take place.
Misting the air as it blows by cools the air and cools the mist particles. Heat in the air becomes latent heat stored in the evaporated water vapor.
Question: And if there is a deficiency in the humidity (say in the descending air in the subtropics), adding the humidity would be offset by less evaporation further downwind over the ocean.
It's possible to use solar heat to preheat the mist. The extra warming-moisturizing energy would tend to lead to better rising thermals nearby, thermals that carry the moist air far upward and that will pull new dry air down to the ocean's surface, increasing total moisture uptake in the moving river of trade wind air. Large, warmed thermals are likely to mix the thermal of newly humidified air well in the moving air river, possibly all the way up to the stratosphere. Mixing the air upward means that we can mix more humidity into a long cross-section of the air river, all within 30 meters of the ocean's surface, because we're regularly overturning the river of air to bring down more dry air.
Yours in Hope,
Paul Klinkman
Oct 12 2024 8:40PM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Paul--One of the suggestions for humidifying the air coming into California. So, I did a calculation of how much water would have to be processed. Perhaps you can check my calculation, but the amount is huge. For the calculation I considered, I assumed there was an airflow onto land for a 10 km wide strip that went up to 900 millibars (apologies for old units), so the bottom 10% of the atmosphere and the air was moving through at 10 km/hr.
So, lowest 10% of the atmosphere is roughly 100 g/cm2 mass of air times maybe 2% humidity (loading to attempt to get to given air coming along is quite dry), so we'll say want to get to 2 g/cm**2) and then times 10 km times 10 km/hr times 1 g/cm3 density of water. That is 200 times 10**10 g of water/hour. Then it is 10**6 g per ton and one comes out with 2 million tons of water per hour to process for each 10 km strip of coastline. That is one huge amount of water to be lofting. Scale my calculation as you'd like and it is still a huge amount of water. And adding water to lower atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect--which goes on day and night.
So, I'd be interested in how and for what purpose the huge amount of energy involved in lofting the water is being utilized?
Best, Mike
|
|
|
|
|
| Albedo Carbon ComparisonOct 12 2024 2:42PM - robert@rtulip.net
This table outlines my opinions on the comparative effects of albedo and carbon cooling strategies.
Assumptions are embedded in the traffic light ratings I have given.
My views conflict with those of the climate policy mainstream, so I would be interested to discuss reasons for these differences.
Regards
Robert Tulip
Rival Cooling Strategies
Albedo
Carbon
Speed
Fast
Slow
Cost
Low
High
Safety
Medium
Low
Scale
Big
Small
Acceptance
Medium
Low
Impact
High
Medium
Risk
Medium
High
--
Oct 12 2024 5:35PM - Michael MacCracken
Hi Robert--
I'm not sure I understand some of your ratings, perhaps because of the terseness of your terms. So:
On Safety, what do you mean, is not doing the CDR generally considered safe, so low risk and should be green? On the other hand, likelihood of success (so safety of the planet) would have CDR low, and so red. So, I think you need to explain better.
On Acceptance, I think there is a good bit of acceptance of CDR and less of Albedo, so should not the CDR color be green?
On Impact, is this in the sense of how much effect the approach can have? Many might think this is the impacts that this will have, so a bit strange that Albedo is high and green. I think this title is just too confusing. And it is hard to see how Carbon will have an impact in conceivable future if idea is to get cooler from current conditions--it is going to be hard enough to do enough so it fully offsets deforestation, etc.
On Risk, what does this mean? Risk of success, or risk from side effects? And how is Carbon high risk--only if this is Risk of achieving objective as CDR approaches generally won't have High adverse impacts. Again term seems ambiguous.
Mike MacCracken
|
|
|
|
|
| Assessing the Potential of Macroalgae-Based Carbon Sequestration in IndonesiaOct 12 2024 2:35PM - Geoengineering News
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920753.2024.2408832
Authors
Firman Zulpikar,Calvyn F. A. Sondak,Marlenny Sirait,Tri D. Pribadi,Lideman,Hafiizh Prasetia,Muhammad Safaat,Ary M. Hada Putri,Yaya I. Ulumuddin,Udhi E. Hernawan,Tri Handayani,Susi Rahmawati,I. Wayan E. Dharmawan,Husein Rifai,Agus Kusnadi,Jeverson Renyaan &Bayu Perisha
Published online: 04 Oct 2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2024.2408832
Abstract
Macroalgae are being intensively explored as a nature-based solution to address climate change. Although there are still some uncertainties about recognizing macroalgae in climate mitigation, the research trend on macroalgae carbon potential continues to increase. We collected secondary data, literature reviews, and expert opinions through focus group discussions to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of macroalgae and examine its feasibility in Indonesian climate mitigation. Our analysis shows that the carbon sequestration potential of macroalgae in Indonesia is significant, estimated to range from 351.246-2.526.332?Mg C yr-1, placing macroalgae as the third largest marine carbon store after mangroves and seagrass. In addition, macroalgae have higher CO2 sequestration rates than other blue carbon habitats. Our assessment of the viability of macroalgae in the blue carbon shows that macroalgae meet the critical elements of blue carbon criteria, including carbon sequestration scale, long-term storage, anthropogenic impact, and social or environmental interventions. However, aligning it with other climate mitigation policies is essential for macroalgae to be fully recognized in blue carbon. This preliminary study suggests that macroalgae could be necessary for Indonesia’s climate mitigation action.
Source: Taylor & Francis
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Emergency vs. UrgencyOct 8 2024 5:12AM - Robert Chris
A quick thought on the difference between our climate situation being an emergency and not being an emergency but requiring urgent action.
Etymology is always fascinating with these Latin derived words. An 'emergency' is a critical situation that has emerged. The notion of 'emergence' is that until it has emerged it was unseen, so it's appearance is a surprise. I wasn't expecting that but now it's happened and it's all hands on deck to sort it out and minimise the harm caused. We just have to throw everything at it in a hurry. Think shipwreck, earthquake, hurricane, car crash etc.
'Urgency' comes from the notion of urging action, impressing the importance of acting because in its absence there will be a disaster very soon. The disaster is foreseen, even if its timing might be uncertain and what we're doing is preparing for soemthing that will happen rather than reacting to something that has already happened. You don't go to the Emergency Room for a vaccine!
Is our climate situation an emergency or is it urgent that we act? Clearly for some, for example those in low lying island states, the harms are already happening and it is an emergency. But most of the world's 8 billion people are not yet so badly afflicted by climate extremes that it would be fair to say for them (us) the harms are already being suffered. However, for almost all those currently, say, 40 years old or less, those harms are increasingly likely in their lifetimes and virtually certain in their children's lifetimes unless urgent action is taken.
I suggest that references to the 'climate emergency' are counterproductive because for most people it isn't an emergency. They're lives are not yet badly affected by climate change. So claiming it to be an emergency when people's lived experience is that it isn't, sends all the wrong messages and probably turns them off from really caring about what's happening.
If OTOH the narrative were reframed around climate change requiring urgent action might that not not only be a more honest representation of the situation, but also be one that allows a more informed and rational debate about what needs to be done by when and by whom.
Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful.
Regards
Robert
--
Oct 8 2024 5:28PM - Tim Foresman
Dear Robert, you raise a cogent thought on how best to communicate to a bell shape (Gaussian) distribution of humans.
Lincoln is quoted regarding fooling people sometimes and all times. It will probably take a decade to level out the terminology for the masses.
I spend energy with youth to tamp down the rhetoric that extinction is imminent, as such sentiments close off progressive thinking.
We are on a long road to adjust the lingua franca for the climate change dialog.
For Earth's sake, keep up the concern.
Peace, Tim
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
_____
Oct 8 2024 8:15PM - Dana Woods
Some of us , including educated people ,PHD scientists, etc frankly don't think it's likely at all that life on Earth will make it past next Summer, for reasons I've already stated in other posts nevermind by the time action is taken to avert mass death and suffering everywhere followed soon after by extinction. Idk where you keep getting a decade from Robert. I'm one of those so it's really beyond an emergency to me/us . The biggest "emergency" for some of us may be deciding upon and acquiring the best euthanasia to use when we begin to suffer too much and being prepared to use it
Again, in the past 15 months the global temp has risen to 1.5 above pre-industrial and that lasting many months after the El Nino passed. AMOC collapsing is warming things up, reduction of sulfur emissions is warming things up, another El Nino is predicted to kick in again before next Summer, solar activity will be VERY high in July 2025. Multiple PHD oceanographers (including those from Scripps and Dr Wadhams ) have been saying we could lose the little bit of Arctic ice that's left any year now for several years which will cause a dramatic rise in global temperature, we're losing Antarctica at break neck speed too. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THE SUBSEA METHANE THAT *IS* MOST DEFINITELY IN THE SHALLOW ARCTIC WHERE IT HAS BEEN BEING RELEASED FOR YEARS NOW, ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENTS, WOULD LIKELY START TO COME OUT IN MUCH LARGER QUANTITIES AS THINGS WARN UP, AS DR WADHAMS DOES, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN IT COULD BE TOO LATE TO ACT BY NEXT SUMMER .
Because we've been lucky so far doesn't mean we'll continue to be !!!!!
Also, I don't see how anyone can look at the climate events that have happened in the US this Summer (life threatening heat in Texas and no grid or ac for 10 days TO 2 weeks) and now the second mega hurricane to land in Fla The one from about a week ago not only destroyed homes, highways (did you miss the videos of those being shredded to nothing?) bridges, ect and KILLED many people. Similar weather events have happened in continental Europe with the repeat devastating flooding (in some places post-drought) coming to mind. Then there are the people who've for years now been living their lives on the run from fires and/or in fear of them on the US West Coast at least part of the year, etc, etc
When I have to stop working outdoors and in my barn because of significantly risen & steadily rising temperatures and massively growing biting insect populations that have given me now PERMANENT rashes on my arms (rising heat and multiplying biting insects being things everyone here in rural upstate NY are feeling) and i can no longer care for 20 some goats , half of whom I can't sell and may have to call animal control on myself that constitutes an emergency and I'm sure there are other people ceasing to work outdoorsfrank;ly because of the same. When it's dangerously hot for the 1/3 of Americans who work outdoors and they quit , will some people be made into slaves who have to work outdoors? Does that constitute an emergency ?
I was ready to see SRM used YEARS AGO because it was already an emergency , and I'm still ready to see it (provided if it's SAI that it won't, for example destroy the ozone) and anything else that will really make a difference used and paid for - ie methane oxidation , CO2 removal , ocean seeding etc .
Oct 8 2024 11:24PM - Michael MacCracken
Hi Robert--A question.
So, Hurricane Helene severely affected some, required a lot of those not so badly affected to volunteer to do a lot of helping of others, has led to the closing of a key manufacturing plant for blood plasma or something similar that over the region is leading to postponement of elective surgery, and the images are being shown all over the country and having a psychological effect as well as leading the political candidates to go to the region. And now we are about to have a second such hurricane that will do lots of damage. Its not clear to me that US society would do well if we start averaging one such huge event (wildfires are another type of such response; vectorborne disease might be another). So, I'm just not convinced were as far from enough disruption to be really serious concern for internal political stability. So, I'd think it really is approaching an emergency situation as far as mental health and stability are concerned. What think you about all this--we are a large nation and the media over whole country convey the situation of the few really hurting in ways that make us all feel it.
Best, Mike
Oct 9 2024 12:15AM - H simmens
Hi Robert,
As someone who along with a colleague got our local government of over 1 million people to declare the second climate emergency on the planet in 2017, behind only a small Australian community, and having written as you know a book on Climate language and vocabulary I have thought a whole lot about the framing and consequences of emergency language and emergency action.
This is not the time to go into detail so I will make just two brief points:
First is that no government or collective enterprise should consider declaring an emergency unless those in charge at the time have a detailed plan explained to their constituents of what they will do, why and for how long under the emergency declaration. it must be time bound as no emergency can be indefinite.
Even though there are over now 1000 communities, states and even nations covering I believe close to 20% of the worlds population that have declared climate emergencies I doubt whether any more than a tiny proportion of those entities meet that criterion.
Ideally what I would like to see and I don’t know if it’s happened anywhere in the world is that a government for example would declare a climate emergency for five years during which time it will have given the highest priority attention to achieving its Climate goals- some combination of mitigation, adaptation and local or even regional cooling.
After that five year period the climate emergency would transition to a ‘declaration of climate urgency’, after assurance that the programs, budgeting, administrative capacity and all the necessary elements of an ongoing climate program were in place.
I could say much more but I’ll leave it there.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
Oct 9 2024 1:02AM - Doug Grandt
Good morning, Night Owls!
It seems to me our current thinking is on the wrong track, and like two trains on parallel tracks leaving the station, we are actually heading to the wrong destination unless we change our thinking, and hop onto the open minded critical thinking paradigm. The emergency is in our heads—our ego, conceit, arrogance and hubris.
We need to shake things up so the ones driving the train reassess … REASSESS!
I keep coming back to this …
image0.jpeg
I’m getting very close to confronting Bill McKibben and his circle of ERA dogma spewers.
Perhaps there is a diplomatic way …
G’nite!
Doug
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
Oct 9 2024 8:22AM - Robert Chris
Mike
I think that the media are largely irrelevant in determining whether it's yet a true emergency. What really matters is people's lived experience and especially the financial impacts they suffer. A certain amount of inconvenience is OK. Indeed, if it's suffered by enough people it can even build community spirit. But once large numbers of homes or livelihoods are threatened that's when it becomes a real emergency. I'm not even sure that a few deaths from a storm are that critical. People are dying all the time and it's easy to brush of 100 dead here or there from a hurricane or wildfire as being 'just one of those things'. It obviously isn't for those directly affected, but they are still tiny in number compared to the total population of the state or nation. And for those living in so far relatively untouched regions, such as Europe, I see no real evidence of what I'd call a climate emergency. Lots of media coverage and academic and even political interest, but emergency, I don't think so.
So when you say that the media help the whole country feel the pain being suffered by the few, I wonder whether that's just your personal heightened awareness and humanity misrepresenting the feelings are the great majority, most of whom are too busy with their own lives to give much of thought to any of this, and care about it even less.
I'm sorry, Mike, but if people really did feel it the way you suggest, the political dynamics would be radically different. It's still all about the economy and and that's all about growth. Anyone who really believes that we're going to grow our way out of this impending catastrophe, is in cloud cuckoo land. Only when that penny drops will things really change and I wouldn't place a bet on that happening soon enough to actually avert the catastrophe.
Quite how this advances the emergency vs. urgency point, I'm not sure, but anything that gives me an opportunity express how dire I consider our predicament, makes me feel better even if, as is almost certainly the case, it makes no difference to how events are likely to unfold.
Regards
Robert
Oct 9 2024 5:00PM - Clive Elsworth
Robert, Mike, and All
In September last year I worked hard – like it was an emergency – to get Franz’s and my submission ready to NASEM for their appraisal of atmospheric removal techniques. Unfortunately, it now appears they completely ignored all the materials I sent them. At the time I thought we finally had a chance for qualified atmospheric chemists to assess our proposals and allocate funding as appropriate, and it would have given our technologies the recognition they deserved. I won’t be doing that again any time soon.
We can’t operate in emergency mode all the time. Instead, I think it’s better to see it as a marathon, not a sprint.
The important thing for me is plain old scientific understanding, based on reasonably reliable information. For example, does anyone ask why the Chinese don’t use their abundant supplies of solar panels and wind turbines to power the crushing of the millions of tons rock needed to release the metal ores that subsequently need to be refined to produce the copious metals, glass and concrete they need to produce more, plus the batteries and EVs we crave? Why do they instead rely on cheap energy from coal to power that process? Could it be that the much-vaunted energy transition to renewables is just a big fat lie? I suggest the Chinese deploy just enough renewables in China for the marketing needed to set an example to the rest of the world to keep us buying more of the same from them – at their fabulously low prices – that increase CO2 emissions further.
I’m not saying renewables don’t have a place, because clearly, they do in some areas. But I don’t see any point in us running round like headless chickens doing things we (humanity) erroneously think will improve the situation, when all we’re doing is making it worse. Bottom line: It’s more important to work smart than work hard. For us in HPAC that would mean promoting and explaining our various cooling solutions and pointing out misinformation and misunderstandings ON A GRAND SCALE, as Wouter has said. For that we clearly need to get better at raising money.
Clive
Oct 9 2024 5:13PM - Dana Woods
Robert,
As if highways utterly disintegrating and 10s of 1000s of (uninsured) homes destroyed or damaged leaving people in a state of extreme trauma isn't an emergency - *So far the death toll from Helene is 227* (that's not "a few" people) and it's expected to be considerably higher as the search continues
Also, according to this article “Helene may be the largest uninsured loss we have seen from a landfalling hurricane because of the widespread devastation in areas where flood insurance take-up rates are so low,” https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/hurricane/2024/10/07/countless-property-owners-in-helenes-path-likely-to-learn-difference-between-floodare-about-to-learn/75481667007/
You said
I suggest that references to the 'climate emergency' are counterproductive because for most people it isn't an emergency. They're lives are not yet badly affected by climate change. So claiming it to be an emergency when people's lived experience is that it isn't, sends all the wrong messages and probably turns them off from really caring about what's happening.
If OTOH the narrative were reframed around climate change requiring urgent action might that not not only be a more honest representation of the situation, but also be one that allows a more informed and rational debate about what needs to be done by when and by whom.
Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that you I or my uncle claiming the climate is an emergency turns people off from caring about what's happening?
That sounds a bit "Michael Mannish" to me and i don't see him motivating people or governments to take the right action
You say "Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful."
I say - WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME WITH SEMANTICS?
And again, people are not so selfish as you perceive them to be . People in other parts of the country care when people's lives are ruined in other parts, and in other countries *IF* if they're covered by media they're exposed to, which it typically they're not due to the nature of the mainstream media to fail (purposefully) to cover such things. Also, for example, on top of that, people here (upstate NY) even see signs of a crisis /when they can't step out their door without being attacked by a cloud of visciously biting insects and when all of a sudden we have a whole Summer of uncomfortably hot days in the 80s and at times up to 90 , when two years ago we had a few days up to 80 (and people were shocked even then) and typically moreso if they're older and don't have as much heat and sun tolerance (ie the present majority of the US population)
Also you're claiming Europe has been largely untouched by the climate crisis ?! Two thirds of Spain alone has been virtually washed away by flooding over the last two years , as well as other countries in continental Europe (I haven't kept up with the all of the exact and countless global manifestations of Hell of Earth the last couple of years ) but here are some articles about it. If I was in the mood to search I'd find the interview with Dr Wadhams last year, replete with footage of the area of Italy he lives in becoming a hell scape with houses and businesses being washed into the river after severe flooding post a prolonged drought . That was the first interview in which I saw him say, basically that his conclusion is "Well, perhaps the Earth will simply continue to become hotter and hotter such that it can no longer support human life"
I maintain that if people say they don't see the climate emergency as a priority it's in large part because they're so busy and stressed struggling to survive week to week in an ever more predatory capitalist society , while the wealthy are temporarily shielded from the consequences , or because they're conservatives with a low IQ some of whom believe the government and wealthy are deliberately causing a climate crisis (not sure how many of those there are but we do have some in the US Congress)
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2024/europe-saw-widespread-flooding-and-severe-heatwaves-2023-report#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Europe%20as%20a%20whole%20saw%20around,in%2016%25%2C%20they%20exceeded%20the%20%E2%80%98severe%E2%80%99%20flood%20threshold.
https://wtop.com/europe/2024/09/deadly-flooding-in-central-europe-made-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change/
Oct 9 2024 5:30PM - Dana Woods
Youtube video Peter Wadhams post 2023 flooding in Northern Italy . Watch 'til the end and you'll see him , albeit "cheerfully" and unusually suggest we simply won't be able to exist beyond a point https://youtu.be/kTfXS047GpU?si=sNcdSXZotlzUNKEI
Oct 9 2024 5:30PM - Dana Woods
"Central Italy"
Oct 9 2024 7:27PM - Robert Chris
Hi Clive
I should have added that if you really want a sense of how unhinged people have become, have another look at the attachment to my email on 8 Oct subject State of the climate report 2024 sent at 22:58.
Regards
Robert
Oct 10 2024 12:22AM - 'Robert Chris'
Hi Clive
Do I detect a note of exasperation, perhaps even disillusionment there? What you're saying, particularly about the canny Chinese, fits the narrative that the only thing that is really valued is economic growth and that obliges us to keep buying more stuff. Making and distributing, and in many cases using, that stuff requires a lot of manufactured energy. There is very longstanding correlation between consumption and energy supply. This correlation survives by accommodating the equally long-standing increases in energy efficiency - there's no escape from Jevons paradox. Assumptions that we're on the cusp of an extraordinary increase in productivity that will break this long-term correlation and defeat Jevons have so far not been realised. It isn't clear why they ever will be.
The other trick is to reduce carbon intensity by using less fossil fuel and more renewables. Well, we know that that transition isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
So, Clive, the bottom line is, that the only way to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to reduce consumption of goods and services by which I mean reduce absolute consumption. There are two ways to do that - lower consumption per capita and/or a lot fewer people. Now who's going to vote for either of those?
The doomster view is that Gaia will sort this out in a way that's not going to be to the liking of most people. But after the correction, things will stabilise and begin to pick up again, so it's not all bad news. The Promethean view is that technology will come to our rescue and there'll be no really bad news.
Take your pick.
Regards
Robert
Oct 10 2024 2:09AM - Oswald Petersen
Dear Clive,
I had a similar experience with NASEM. Not that I wrote a paper, but I sent them two emails asking to be admitted to their team regarding AMR. They never answered.
I asked Rob Jackson why this is the case, and he said that NASEM is really very US focused.
This is a strange behavior IMHO.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth
https://georestoration.earth
https://cool-planet.earth
Oct 10 2024 2:20AM - Oswald Petersen
Hi Robert,
well spoken.
You might want to add a sentence regarding distribution of goods. It would probably be about right to say that 90% of the climate crisis is caused by the goods produced for 10% of the global population. Henceforth it would be good to tax consumption of luxury goods (everything but basic food, heating, school, health…) heavily, and funnel the revenue into climate saving technology.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth
https://georestoration.earth
https://cool-planet.earth
Oct 10 2024 4:41AM - Clive Elsworth
Hi Robert
Yes, I feel exasperation, death of hope, and sour grapes. ?
You give us a difficult choice – the doomster view or the Promethean. Clearly, the doomster view is already coming true, and the Promethean (SRM) is being killed at birth. And yes, those views in your table (attached again here) are not grounded, but no surprise to me.
My own view of a sustainable end goal for planet Earth is of taxing the externalities to pay for their clean-up. But obviously there’s a long way to go to get to that, because it would require unprecedented international cooperation to overcome the international tragedy of the commons. The hope I see is of the growing alliance of maritime trading nations forming strong treaties, i.e. with appropriate penalties for violation. (Maritime trading nations = the Western world, including Japan, Australasia etc.) The problem is the other nations, which are either continental empires (Russia, China) or continental tribes and countries that have only ever squabbled.
I suggest those of us from the maritime trading nations have somewhere deep in our social DNA the principles of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, i.e. win-win cooperation. Without that, for everyone else, the default is win-lose at best, i.e. life is a zero-sum game. I found this interview of Sarah Paine instructive, in which she explains how negative sum games are common in continental empires, in which it’s best to ensure that the other side loses more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcVSgYz5SJ8
She is Professor of History and Strategy at the Naval War College. The video comments are adulatory.
Clive
Oct 10 2024 6:34AM - Tom Goreau
Tax destructive “bads” to pay for essential “goods”: that the basis of the original carbon tax proposal (attached):
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
goreau@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
thy-planet-action-coalition@googlegroups.com>
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d8b04480-fd6a-4558-91c3-ee865f9a25b1%40gmail.com.
--
Oct 10 2024 7:39AM - 'Robert Chris'
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important
Tom
You're absolutely right that the externalisation of environmental costs in the price of fossil fuel energy needs to be rectified. However they key questions are what might trigger the political moves necessary to achieve that and then, what might ensure that the funds raised are directed towards environmentally sound tropical development.
What makes this all especially challenging is that apart from political myopia, there is an inconvenient inconsistency at the heart of such moves. If the FF tax is effective, it will reduce the amount of FF consumed and that will reduce the tax yield. Redirecting the tax funds to tropical environmental development will deny those funds to other parts of the economy. It cannot be assumed that the contraction this would cause would be offset by the growth in tropical environmental development. Indeed, it seems likely that it wouldn't and therefore the FF tax would result in lower economic growth. This will trigger negative sentiment in capital markets that will depress asset values, deter investment, increase unemployment and calls on social welfare. This leads to a negative feedback in public finances that causes a lot of pain in a lot of places. The higher the FF tax and the more effective it is in reducing FF consumption, the more the feedback pain. That's why it isn't going to happen.
Any environmentally sound action that might negatively impact economic growth will not be taken by democratically elected politicians. (Note 'might', it doesn't need to, the fear that it might is enough.) Arguments that investment in that environmental action are necessary to maintain the ecosystems on which Earth-bound life depends, will continue to be largely ignored until their negative consequences have been registered in significant and sustained loss of value in capital markets. It will also depend on the widespread daily lived experience in the developed nations already having deteriorated sufficiently (food shortages, power outages, and general reduction in the quality and reliability of publicly financed services etc.) that people recognise that this isn't just another passing hurricane or wildfire, this is now a permanent diminution in living standards and growing uncertainty about how and when things might recover.
Those of us in this bubble might find this lack of engagement totally incomprehensible but you only need to look in two places to understand how rare we are. These two place are election rhetoric and the popular press and news media. How big a deal is climate change in any major election? There are almost no votes in climate change because any sane climate change policy regime would entail some really unpopular actions. In the popular press, while there might be increasing coverage of the storms and wildfires, this just illustrates the first law of the news media that sensationalism sells. Where's the coverage of what needs to be done to stop it all getting a lot worse and pressure to bring that about?
Finally, despite this bleak outlook, we have to keep plugging away, doing what we can to raise awareness and provide alternative pathways. Miracles do happen, but they often need a helping hand.
Regards
Robert
Oct 10 2024 8:39AM - 'Robert Chris'
Tom
You're absolutely right that the externalisation of environmental costs in the price of fossil fuel energy needs to be rectified. However they key questions are what might trigger the political moves necessary to achieve that and then, what might ensure that the funds raised are directed towards environmentally sound tropical development.
What makes this all especially challenging is that apart from political myopia, there is an inconvenient inconsistency at the heart of such moves. If the FF tax is effective, it will reduce the amount of FF consumed and that will reduce the tax yield. Redirecting the tax funds to tropical environmental development will deny those funds to other parts of the economy. It cannot be assumed that the contraction this would cause would be offset by the growth in tropical environmental development. Indeed, it seems likely that it wouldn't and therefore the FF tax would result in lower economic growth. This will trigger negative sentiment in capital markets that will depress asset values, deter investment, increase unemployment and calls on social welfare. This leads to a negative feedback in public finances that causes a lot of pain in a lot of places. The higher the FF tax and the more effective it is in reducing FF consumption, the more the feedback pain. That's why it isn't going to happen.
Any environmentally sound action that might negatively impact economic growth will not be taken by democratically elected politicians. (Note 'might', it doesn't need to, the fear that it might is enough.) Arguments that investment in that environmental action are necessary to maintain the ecosystems on which Earth-bound life depends, will continue to be largely ignored until their negative consequences have been registered in significant and sustained loss of value in capital markets. It will also depend on the widespread daily lived experience in the developed nations already having deteriorated sufficiently (food shortages, power outages, and general reduction in the quality and reliability of publicly financed services etc.) that people recognise that this isn't just another passing hurricane or wildfire, this is now a permanent diminution in living standards and growing uncertainty about how and when things might recover.
Those of us in this bubble might find this lack of engagement totally incomprehensible but you only need to look in two places to understand how rare we are. These two place are election rhetoric and the popular press and news media. How big a deal is climate change in any major election? There are almost no votes in climate change because any sane climate change policy regime would entail some really unpopular actions. In the popular press, while there might be increasing coverage of the storms and wildfires, this just illustrates the first law of the news media that sensationalism sells. Where's the coverage of what needs to be done to stop it all getting a lot worse and pressure to bring that about?
Finally, despite this bleak outlook, we have to keep plugging away, doing what we can to raise awareness and provide alternative pathways. Miracles do happen, but they often need a helping hand.
Regards
Robert
Oct 10 2024 8:50AM - Anderson, Paul
To get into the media, “Sensationalism sells”. Perhaps we need to be sensational.
In politics, “Talk about me, good or bad, talk about me” . Refreeze the arctic. Avoid the pain of fossil fuel taxes/changes.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders@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.
Oct 10 2024 4:15PM - Dana Woods
Clive ,
Did the National Academies respond to you at all ?
I wonder what it took and how long it took for them to recommend research of SRM. Did David Keith et al/The Keith Group approach them to ask them to do so? (I'm guessing yes. All 3 of the the specific things recommended be studied are things the Keith Group are studying/ have studied/are now promoting ) and if so do you know or can you find out how long it took NASEM to respond by recommending to the US government that money be allocated for their study?
Maybe this is a dumb question but does the political climate in the US have any bearing on what NASEM does? eg would they think that US involvement and money spending in the war in Ukraine and then in Gaza would leave little energy and funding for science funding and therefore be waiting for a better time to advocate for yet more study of geoengineering?
Also why do you say SRM is dead before it's been born ? Maybe it needs more proof of popular support before governments will act on it (though I do think funding the military industrial complex may be one barrier to funding geoengineering the way it needs to be funded). Even an online petition asking for funding of either types , signed by even few 100 Americans might help
(?) I think there are a lot more average Americans who would support more study and field testing of both than Americans on city councils in places like Alameda Ca (and Alameda County for example, where simple testing of MCB was nixed by the city council (I actually sort of know who "runs" Alameda County ,or I did five or six years ago when I lived in Ca and was in touch with "Bernie Sanders people" and/or post Bernie Sanders people, and had them on my facebook friends list, at least some of the most active people in the Democratic Party there and I can tell you they're rather "stayed" leftists, seemingly some with quite stubborn personalities and not necessarily very open-minded (or hearted) people (I hope they don't see this, lol) .....They are not the average American nor, probably, even the average Ca Bay area person .
I saw recently, by the way, David Keith say somewhere that in the future they'd simply have to be less open about (obviously harmless) field testing
I should ask him, I suppose, but Peter Feikowsky stated that it was a given that neither the government nor the public would pay for the technologies you both support. Does he expect wealthy people to fund them and if so does he expect them to fund them indefinitely?. He maintained that wealthy people were just "waiting for cover" from other people before they made large donations to his work /foundation..
Thanks for your efforts !
Regards, Dana
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:50?AM 'Anderson, Paul' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:
To get into the media, “Sensationalism sells”. Perhaps we need to be sensational.
In politics, “Talk about me, good or bad, talk about me” . Refreeze the arctic. Avoid the pain of fossil fuel taxes/changes.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders@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.
Oct 10 2024 4:17PM - Dana Woods
ps please forgive my abuse of commas
Oct 10 2024 4:29PM - Dana Woods
And "Friends of the Earth" should get letters too, to the effect that "I used to support you and even made donations to you but due to your destructive and egregious stand against solar energy management (or is it all geoengineering) I can no longer do so"
Oct 10 2024 9:36PM - Sev Clarke
Robert C,
Regarding your sentence below that I have bolded, good policy and actions may not be as unlikely or as unpopular as you suppose - once good advocacy and research makes their costs and risk:risk effects clear and once the costs of further ineffective action have been appreciated by those stressed by even more global warming. This nursery rhyme on indifference may be instructive https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/4779/what-was-the-origin-of-the-nursery-rhyme-dont-care-was-made-to-care
. Consider these four of my contributions to our 14 proposed DCC methods.
Buoyant Flakes are presently under investigation and testing by five international research groups with early lab results that look most prospective. Small, gated trials might be conducted or governed by several coastal states in their oligotrophic EEZ waters with transparent, public scrutiny by way of independent MRV scientists and the new PACE satellites, see https://pace.gsfc.nasa.gov/
. Once key publics and decision-makers were sufficiently convinced of the extent of the albedo cooling and marine biomass regeneration caused at each experimental site by the additional phytoplankton, and of the safety, sustainability and low cost of flake application, extending the use of the method might be expected to occur, if with caution and further optimisation.
Assuming that the Fiztop method of introducing long-lived (months) nanobubbles into the sea surface microlayer could be shown to be techno-economically feasible, tests might then show the cumulative amount of extra solar radiation energy that could be reflected back into space by the brightened water per year by a typical Fiztop unit in tropical waters. The down-current albedo effects might extend hundreds of kilometres. As complementary method benefits would be important, it should be noted that the surfactants released by the additional concentrations of flake-nutriated phytoplankton would substantially extend the life of the Fiztop nanobubbles, whilst the additional ocean oxygenation provided by the bubbles would help marine life. Note, that nanobubbles are already present in the ocean from breaking waves and that laboratory tests have shown them to be net beneficial to marine life.
Seatomiser action, when tested locally for techno-economic net benefits, would serve to cool, overheated surface ocean waters by evaporation by increasing the surface area of the ocean by several orders of magnitude (hence reducing extreme weather events, coral bleaching and ocean stratification), whilst the additional cloud cover generated by the humidified and nucleated air should provide albedo increments and a modicum of precipitation control far downwind - the benefits of which might extend to regenerating tropical forests and their wondrous, evapotranspiration effects. Atmospheric methane removal by sublimated iron salt aerosols (ISA) might be another desirable co-benefit, and one which was, perhaps, more easily quantifiable and thus remunerated, by the use of methane-sensing satellites.
Testing how rapidly sea-ice could be thickened using the Ice Shields method might readily be done economically, and in parallel with, other methods now being tested by our scientific colleagues. Scaling up to testing using power to a floating, satellite pumping station would take a little more effort; whilst using a cold-adapted, floating wind turbine to provide the power might cost several million dollars. Whilst the main objective of such a method is to increase planetary albedo by refreezing much of the polar and some sub-polar regions, a full techno-socio-econo-ecological assessment would be a major undertaking, so numerous are the prospective opportunities and effects.
Sev
Oct 11 2024 8:13AM - Dr. Robert Chris
Hi Sev
I agree but they are two seriously big prior conditions. At the moment SRM technologies are seen as solutions looking for a problem. It is simply not accepted that SRM is necessary because, it is argued, we have decarbonisation, and that done at sufficient scale and speed renders SRM redundant. There will be no change in that perception of any form of SRM intervention until the penny drops that decarbonisation isn't a viable solution. That penny will not drop any sooner by virtue of all the wondrous potential SRM technologies. Their existence doesn't make decarbonisation any more or less effective. Decarbonisation has to fail on its own merits before there'll be any enthusiasm for any kind of SRM. Then the SRM floodgates will open, but not before. The big question is whether that will all happen soon enough that SRM will by then still be a viable solution. There will come a time when unabate climate change will have achieved such momentum that all the SRM we could manage won't be sufficient to stop or reverse it.
Regards
Robert
Oct 11 2024 4:32PM - Dana Woods
I bet a WHOLE LOT of people think , at this point , already think that decarbonization isn't going to happen in time, if at all (my opinion , which I realize is irrelevant to some though not all of you), THAT probably would and does have an effect on people's attitude towards MCB, SAI, methane oxidation, etc etc . As I've said when I talk to people face to face , from Republicans to progressives about MCB and SAI (a couple even work for the Nature Conservancy) they're open to them, and I'm not the type of person people falsely "yes." I typically mention there are questions that need to be answered , such as, for me, would SAI affect the ozone layer and how? and would either SAI or MCB affect primary production and I say that developers are also concerned about doing things safely.
I do think those questions need to be answered, if possible, BEFORE we appeal to the public at large and we all need to be aware of the answers . I know SAI developers don't believe it would hurt the ozone but I , for example, personally need to see published science convincing me of that, and any there may be about photosynthesis. The most common negative reaction on the internet to SRM is "But it will block the sun and crops/food wont grow ! " It's a legit concern and we should all be able to respond .
How many and which environmental groups are opposed to SRM or geoengineering and/or study or field testing of anyway? and of those how many would *actively* oppose at least simple field experiments? I thought I had read over a year ago that Union of Concerned Scientists was pro-studying SRM but can't find that now, but instead , arguments for "public debate" before even field testing is done written in 2020 and nothing after that
Again, I'm glad that some developers apparently now plan on doing basic field testing without making it public !!
Cheers, Dana
Oct 11 2024 4:59PM - Clive Elsworth
Dana
I don’t know the answers to your questions.
And I probably should not have said SRM is being killed at birth, because I don’t have eyes on every single project and government or scientific paper on the subject. Forgive me, it was a knee jerk response to the onslaught of reports from opposition groups, who are busy banning well-meaning planetary cooling interventions.
I’m left wondering is if these groups feel any responsibility for the 100s of people killed in the two hurricanes to hit Florida recently. $50 billion is the estimated cost of Milton alone (FT, today). And these are only the climate impacts that have received airtime. What about the ecosystem destruction? And what about all the other climate impacts over the rest of the world this year?
I’d say the impact of these anti-geoengineering idealists (f***wits) – who deliberately inflict a chilling effect on the already underfunded efforts of innumerable scientists and engineers – is comparable to Putin’s effect on the world. In the end, it’ll immeasurably worse if self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms take the system out of our control.
But I hope you are right, along with the encouraging statements made by others in this group – that many ordinary folk around the world are open to the idea of restoring the Earth’s natural level of sun reflectivity (Rebrightening the Earth)
and even enhancing it, while economically viable mechanisms to achieve net-zero are developed and enacted.
Clive
Oct 11 2024 7:37PM - Dana Woods
Clive,
No apology necessary . I was being honest but also trying to lift your spirits. I've said before I believe that tragically we may possibly not have time left to save life on Earth but we may not be and anyone who's trying to do so is much appreciated by me , especially if they're going beyond emissions reduction as a strategy
I was wondering, too, how much people in environmental groups opposing even small SRM field trials actually care about the people already suffering a lot from global warming & climate change. Maybe asking that question in some venue (ideas anyone? letters to editors? ) would be a good response to Friends of the Earth's recent stated position . Some of these groups, and most definitely Friends of the Earth , who's internet page I was just skimming, maintains that it's main climate issue is "climate justice" and whoever is making their decisions is claiming to care the most about the least enfranchised people in the world.... and in this case that would be people in the tropics and the global South in general who are, in fact, dying of heat alone in 100s of 1000s , per year now ...
I'm also curious about exactly who makes policy for most environmental groups and if they typically include atmospheric scientists , oceanographers, physicists of any kind etc.maybe evolutionary biologists etc, or are the people making their decisions more just activist and maybe social sciences type people (?) I wonder, if they're not being guided much at all by the types of scientists who can understand the whole picture, could and should that be a point of argument for groups such as HPAC and/or developers ?
I know that Union of Concerned Scientists was founded by actual scientists and science students and I assume they're still the active experts and policy makers though I don't actually know . It seems odd I can't find anything post 2020 from them about SRM (at which time they were asking for large global public debate before even small field tests were done :sigh:)
Oct 11 2024 9:23PM - Sev Clarke
Hi Robert,
There is force in your observations, but I do believe that we can make headway with scientific TRM, SRM and CDR experiments, with cautiously scaling up field trials, and with less than global approvals.
As this is a restricted audience, I feel free to bring up some of the hurdles I attribute to some of our DCC approaches - as well as some of our recent advances. We know that five research organisations are investigating the Buoyant Flakes method with early promising results. Ice thickening experiments are being conducted and the experimenters may soon be convinced that flood pumping, under-ice thickening, and yearly renewals or relocations of on-ice pump location throughout the Arctic have better alternatives. Similar recognitions might be made regarding the use of existing assets or proven designs for MCB, SAI and AMR, rather than requiring whole new fleets of unproven-design, ships or aircraft to carry out the tasks.
Regarding local and regional approvals, the way has already been shown by ice thickening activities dating back to the sixties; with some of the new, satellite-based methods for independent and transparent MVR; by Dr. Dan Harrison’s group using seawater atomisation to try to prevent coral reef bleaching, and for bubble generators now improving maritime vessel efficiency and, possibly, with application as nanobubbles to ocean albedo enhancement and health. We can build on these and similar projects to gain groundswell social approval within existing laws, treaties and regulations. I suspect that once several such experiments and trials are seen to be successful, and without major and unmitigatable adverse side-effects, that even the COP will be persuaded to support them - particularly when no other option offers us haven.
Regards,
Sev
Oct 12 2024 12:24AM - Oswald Petersen
Hello Dana,
I think you are right in many ways.
IMHO SAI produces fear in people, just like myself, because it involves technology which emulates volcano eruptions. Who would want a constant volcano eruption? Now the Pro SAI people say: This is better than emission reduction alone (ERA). They may be right, but as you know by now there is a third alternative.
Regards
Oswald
Oct 12 2024 6:55AM - Clive@endorphinsoftware.co.uk
Dana
Our main fear of SAI (Franz, me and Oswald) is its effect on tropospheric oxidation. We all take it for granted that when we open a window fresh air comes in. The Earth has an unusually high concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere, which means UV creates oxidative radicals that oxidise all kinds of substances such as dimethyl sulphide from phytoplankton (the smell of the sea), sulphur dioxide, NOx (comes from Lightning Strikes and combustion), methane, carbon monoxide and smoke particles which come from forest fires, hydrogen sulphide (putrid smelling and highly poisonous) which comes from microbes on submerged rotting material. H2S is a constant problem for oilmen because it’s contained in crude oil and is corrosive.
What we fear is that the partial blocking of UV by a long-term SAI intervention would reduce the removal of these substances from the troposphere, most of which are warming agents.
oxidation also converts the smell of vegetation, mainly Isoprene but also Pinetene the smell of pine Forrest into secondary organic aerosol particles, which are major CCN for terrestrial cloud formation. Would an SAI intervention make darker terrestrial clouds? Would rainfall patterns be affected? I don’t know.
We are not convinced that sufficient work has been carried out to ensure that the oxidative capacity of the troposphere would be minimally affected by an SAI intervention.
Clive
Oct 12 2024 9:52AM - Oswald Petersen
Hi Clive, Dana,
that’s exactly right.
I also fear that SAI would cause considerable political upheaval. Darkening the sun is something many people feel strongly against.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth
https://georestoration.earth
https://cool-planet.earth
Oct 12 2024 11:36AM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Oswald--A 1% change (equivalent to half a CO2 doubling) would be very hard to discern given the variability through the day, weather, season, etc. We've had reductions of that amount by volcanic eruptions that no one has noticed. What on might notice is a bit more colorful sunrises and sunsets, but given the range of what can happen with the weather that also would likely be hard for people to notice.
Mike
Oct 12 2024 11:41AM - Tom Goreau
It already happened due to air pollution from fossil fuels!
It reduced surface pan evaporation measurements made at every meteorological station globally.
It’s called global dimming.
Oct 12 2024 1:16PM - Oswald Petersen
Hi Mike,
I absolutely agree. The political upheaval I refer to will however com BEFORE any real change occurs. People will try all they can to prevent SAI from happening.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth
https://georestoration.earth
https://cool-planet.earth
Oct 12 2024 3:05PM - David Price
Hi Folks - including Dana Woods
To add to Mike’s comments, I am keen to correct the apparent common misperception that a minuscule reduction in solar radiation due to wide-scale SAI would negatively affect plant productivity.
The rate of photosynthesis at the top of any vegetation canopy is dependant on both direct “beam” radiation (from the solar disk) and on “diffuse” radiation (from the sky—including transmission through and between clouds). It is well known (and should be obvious) that plants still grow quite happily on cloudy days — when the ratio of diffuse to beam radiation is much higher than it is on clear sunny days.
In fact under some conditions plant productivity will be higher on cloudy days! There are two reasons for this. One is that cloud cover reduces surface heating, including the heating of exposed foliage. The lower temperature reduces respiratory losses from leaves, roots and branches—all of which release CO2 due to metabolism—plant respiration approximately doubles with a 10 C temperature increase.
The second (less obvious) effect is that diffuse radiation penetrates deeper into plant (and) crop canopies where it is received by leaves that are partially or even completely shaded from the direct beam radiation. Even on sunny days some direct radiation is transmitted and reflected by the foliage — creating diffuse light deeper in the canopy. But cloudy conditions increase the average amount that penetrates below the top of the canopy.
The overall impact of a slight reduction in direct solar radiation and a slight boost in the diffuse component, coupled with the general cooling effect, all due to SAI, would have a negligible effect on plant productivity — but it is quite possible that it would cause a slight increase in global annual primary production.
David
From my cellphone
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory
of the Secwépemc People
On Oct 12, 2024, at 8:36?AM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:
?
Dear Oswald--A 1% change (equivalent to half a CO2 doubling) would be very hard to discern given the variability through the day, weather, season, etc. We've had reductions of that amount by volcanic eruptions that no one has noticed. What on might notice is a bit more colorful sunrises and sunsets, but given the range of what can happen with the weather that also would likely be hard for people to notice.
Mike
Oct 12 2024 5:36PM - Dana Woods
Hello all , I'm responding in order of comments and questions -
Greg - I don't remember where I saw that comment from David Keith about doing things less publicly but I don't talk to David (though I tried to ask him a bunch of questions about SAI years ago now which he didn't have time to answer) And it wasn't a comment made privately to someone else either. It was in some public or relatively public venue (and not in this group) I'm pretty sure he was talking about doing basic testing that wouldn't actually affect any living thing. Imo the opposition to such , and now having been directred against simple MCB field testing also, is extremely ignorant and dangerous so I'm all for it .
Oswald , Mike ,Clive ,Tom and David (because it's easier to address you all at once) -I never said, Oswald, that *I* think SAI equates with "darkening the sun" nor even that *most* people would actually assume that, unless they're simple minded and/or take sensationalist media for granted but photosynthesis is a legit concern - However with an adequate response such as that that Mike offered, and elaborated upon (and I think that Doug Mcmartin also offered an explanation that I can't remember well) any fears re photosynthesis can seemingly be put aside . As I said when I talk directly to people about SAI they are interested, not afraid, but Oswald, If I had your approach and told people ,erroneously , that it was going to block out the sun I'm sure I'd get a different response.
However an actual , apparently real and significant concern is that which Clive expressed about SAI interfering with oxidation (and that would as I understand include deliberate attempts to oxidize Methane which if that works in the Arctic especially, might possibly keep us from passing more tipping point and/or extinction if done in time) . What do SAI developers and supporters have to say about this ??? Mike? Tom? David? Are you reading Doug M?
Thanks for the explanations everyone.
David would this explanation about sunlight apply as well to Marine Cloud Brightening also? (I seem to remember comments from someone from many months ago from someone that MCB could harm photosynthesis whereas SAI wouldn't )
Any thoughts on the potential effect on the ozone layer ???
Tom are you arguing that SAI would have no more effect on oxidation , as described by Clive, than aerosols already in the atmosphere from industrial emissions ? or only that it would have little effect on appearance of sunlight and the sky and on photosynthesis ?
I used to be strictly supportive of MCB but claims by some folks, especially John Nissan, that MCB isn't strong enough to do what needs to be done affected me and made me feel I should potentially be more open to SAI. I know that when Stephen Salter was still with us he tried very hard to make the argument that MCB could be sufficient . He was even so kind as to send me some personal emails to attempt to explain this, but having negligible math and science education I was unable to understand the debate and his emails .
I know too that there are other reasons why *if* SAI were safe for the ozone and didn't interfere with the things Clive mentioned it might be preferable because it could much more easily be used on a global scale (or so I've understood so far) and thus done so that it wouldn't cause extreme weather events in places it isn't being done
With MCB it seems there would be the question of how opposition to radiative forcing in a given part of the globe only would affect other parts of the globe
I'm sure African countries are afraid that selfish "westerners" /the global north would use any SRM to benefit only themselves, as basically been suggested by most media that's "covered" it , and is why they tend to be opposed to SRM
Oct 12 2024 7:17PM - Michael MacCracken
A lot of questions here--this responds to only one:
There was an excellent talk yesterday (October 11) by Dr. Kelsey Roberts of LSU (Louisiana State University) in the NCAR Virtual Symposium on the effects of SAI (and some of CDR) on their effects and benefits on the marine environment; it was the first half of the hour long symposium. It is not yet posted, but I expect that it will be posted at https://sites.google.com/view/solargeo-symposium/home
in the near future.
Mike MacCracken
Oct 12 2024 7:24PM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Dana--As a general response, the questions such as you raised are getting addressed as part of various GeoMIP studies and other studies, etc. And there is also research being done by those in African nations, etc. Getting into detailed and authoritative back and forths on all of this here is really asking a lot more than is likely possible and more appropriate for official assessment processes.
Mike MacCracken
Oct 12 2024 7:58PM - Dana Woods
Thanks for responding Mike. I'm glad to hear that these questions are being researched and it's great that African nations are doing research. I just want to be as educated as I can be about these basic questions, partly so that if I or someone else brings up SRM topics and there are serious legit concerns about the technologies I can respond (ie to the best of my ability without understanding science and math language , which the average person likely isn't any more familiar with though some most definitely are)
And thanks for the link . I'll watch that when it's available
Oct 12 2024 8:16PM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Dana--If you want to read about some of the leading research, the other videos at that site might well also be of interest.
Mike
Oct 12 2024 8:28PM - Dana Woods
PS Greg, I'm almost certain that comment by David Keith was made post the blocking of the MCB experiment by the Alameda Ca City Council and was in a publicly accessible media source.
It may likely have been in an article about the blocking of the MCB test . I had been googling a lot about that when I found his comment.
|
|
|
|
|
| Emissions Trading and Certification Methodologies for BiocharOct 12 2024 6:21AM - Geoengineering News
https://pure.uos.ac.kr/en/publications/emissions-trading-and-certification-methodologies-for-biochar
Authors
So Yee Park, Jai Young Lee
2024
https://doi.org/10.9786/kswm.2024.41.1.1
Abstract
The 2006 IPCC Inventory Report Guidelines, which proposed a calculation method for determining the carbon sequestration (greenhouse gas reduction) of biochar input into the soil, were revised in 2019. Furthermore, the IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) on mitigating climate change, released in April 2022, states that biochar can contribute to offsetting greenhouse gases by removing atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus aiding in achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, biochar has been identified as an economically efficient resource with significant potential for carbon removal, making it a viable option for greenhouse gas reduction in national inventory reports. Moreover, international efforts are underway to develop methodologies for certifying this reduction, thereby facilitating greenhouse gas emission trading. For instance, Japan has developed a national-scale methodology, while the European Union has devised a methodology for certifying the greenhouse gas reduction of biochar in the carbon trading market. These certification methodologies encompass general considerations, such as system boundaries, methodologies for baselines, and monitoring methodologies. In the case of biochar, two factors must be considered when using the life cycle assessment methodology: soil inputs and concrete additives. Regarding soil inputs, a nationally intrinsic value must be derived for a parameter (the proportion of biochar remaining after 100 years) representing the change in organic carbon stock. For carbon sequestration using biochar as an additive in concrete products, etc., a value must be determined based on the product’s lifespan. Ultimately, this study advocates for governmental measures to develop emission-trading methodologies for disseminating carbon removal technologies that utilize biochar.
Source: University of Seoul
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Perceptions of carbon dioxide emission reductions and future warming among climate expertsSep 15 2024 2:34PM - Geoengineering News
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01661-8
Authors
Seth Wynes, Steven J. Davis, Mitchell Dickau, Susan Ly, Edward Maibach, Joeri Rogelj, Kirsten Zickfeld & H. Damon Matthews
12 September 2024
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) employs emission scenarios to explore a range of future climate outcomes but refrains from assigning probabilities to individual scenarios. However, IPCC authors have their own views on the likelihood of different climate outcomes, which are valuable to understand because authors possess both expert insight and considerable influence. Here we report the results of a survey of 211 IPCC authors about the likelihood of four key climate outcomes. We found that most authors are skeptical that warming will be limited to the Paris targets of well below 2?°C, but are more optimistic that net zero CO2 emissions will be reached during the second half of this century. When asked about the beliefs of their peers, author responses showed strong correlations between personal and peer beliefs, suggesting that participants with extreme beliefs perceive their own estimates as closer to the community average than they actually are.
Density plot showing subjective estimates of future climate outcomes in four categories.
figure 1
Source: Nature
--
Sep 15 2024 5:48PM - Michael Hayes
Net zero beyond 2050, 25 years from now, may get ecliped by a more than likely ice-free Arctic in <20 years and a rather rapid ramping up of natural GHG emissions:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8
Any mCDR technique or combination of CDR methods, that can directly produce sea ice, and/or preserve thin ice, needs a special subclass within the CDR field, a possible 'cryoCDR' class. Many other CDR methods have important downstream benefits and services, and ice production/protection offers downstream product/service of obvious importance.
Interestingly, the authors of both papers, that are currently linked within this thread, are pointing out more than likely significant past underestimations in their respective fields. I do wonder if the seperate time lines have been viewed together or fully factored in as happening at the same time. A rouge estimate is that we are 5-10 years short of time, yet I could be wrong.
Oct 12 2024 11:15PM - Graeme Taylor
This is interesting: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01661-8#Bib1
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Possible discussion items for Monday's NOAC meeting - building an inventory of expected emissions from natural feedbacksOct 12 2024 6:40PM - Bruce Parker
I’ve been looking both at the expected greenhouse gas emissions from natural feedbacks and at how feedbacks are incorporated into climate models. Although it is known that the IPCC’s carbon budgets underestimate the emissions from natural feedbacks, I have not been able to find any articles that either “inventory” the expected emissions from most natural feedbacks or discuss specific reductions to the carbon budgets based on what climate scientists now know. Given my initial analysis (see tables and links to my analysis below) I would think that having climate scientists update my “inventory” based on the latest scientific knowledge would be a high priority as it appears likely the carbon budgets currently used for policy making need to be dramatically reduced. That could also make people realize that a “mitigation and CDR” strategy would not be sufficient to prevent really serious damages from climate change (hence the need for NOAC ASAP).
Discussion items:
1. The need for an “inventory” of the expected emissions from most natural feedbacks
2. How to create an inventory which the “public” will accept
3. How feedbacks are incorporated into climate models – the “climate feedback factor” = temperature increase in units of W/m-2 per °C (I can give an overview)
Not to discuss – specific feedbacks
Bruce
Feedback
Likely CO2e through 2100 (GTCO2e)
CO2e Through 2100 Included in Climate Models For A 1.5°C Temperature Increase in 2100 (GTCO2e)
A
Permafrost
200
130
B
Subsea Permafrost
150
0
C
Amazon Rainforest Dieback
100
0
D
Arctic sea ice (Albedo)
320
150
E
Northern hemisphere snow cover extent (Albedo)
200
95
F
Peatlands
100
40
G
Wildfires
200
47
H
Surface Waters and Waste
150
I
Soils (extra due to higher temperatures)
200
J
Oceanic changes that reduce CO2 uptake
???
K
Antarctic sea ice (Albedo)
???
L
Land use changes
???
M
Other forest dieback
???
N
Insect outbreaks
???
O
Desertification
???
P
Deforestation (Albedo)
???
Q
Deforestation (GHG)
???
R
Other natural feedbacks
???
Total
1650
462
cid:image003.jpg@01DB1CBE.7E581F70
Links to my analyses:
https://www.chesdata.com/documents/Questions for Climate Scientists.pdf
https://www.chesdata.com/documents/GHG emissions from natural feedbacks.pdf
https://www.chesdata.com/documents/CO2BudgetAndNaturalFeedbacks.pdf
--
Oct 12 2024 7:58PM - Michael MacCracken
Dear Bruce--First, I think your suggestion to put together such a listing is well worth doing, though I would note that not all models are the same.
Second, I'd suggest that the models already include the changes in albedo from snow and sea ice changes and meltback (mountain glaciers may be an exception). What most models really don't do well, as I understand it, is the flow and calving of glacial streams that also has the effect of lowering the surface of glaciers and ice sheets.
Third, when you say forest fires, you should likely also mention revegetation.
Best, Mike MacCracken
|
|
|
|
|
| The global potential for carbon removal through biochar in shifting cultivation systemsOct 12 2024 7:15PM - Geoengineering News
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-024-10170-0
Authors
Anders Henrik Sirén
29 October 2024
Citations: Sirén, A.H. The global potential for carbon removal through biochar in shifting cultivation systems. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 29, 75 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10170-0
Abstract
In the Special Report on Climate Change and Land, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global potential for removal of carbon from the atmosphere by making biochar and amending it to soils in shifting cultivation systems was estimated to approximately 0.21 – 0.35 Gt C/year, corresponding to 2.1 – 3.6% of current global CO2 emissions. Here we review these estimates and present experiences from pilot field trials making biochar in shifting cultivation fields. Making use of some more recent data, we calculated a revised estimate of 0.17 Gt C/yr as the minimum feasible potential, and 0.32, Gt C/yr for the technical potential. The difference between these is that in order to realize the former, production costs as well as negative environmental impacts are minimal, whereas realizing the latter, on the other hand implies significant, potentially prohibitive, production cost and might also imply significant negative environmental impacts, including the emission of GHGs that in the worst case might offset the climate benefits provided by the biochar it. Taking into account that the addition of biochar to the soil increases tree growth rates, these estimates increase to 0.22 and 0.42 Gt C/yr, respectively. Remaining key challenges are to 1) identify production methods that ensure that emissions of GHGs and other environmental pollutants from biochar production are minimized, 2) reduce production costs, and 3) design procedures for monitoring the storage of biochar in soils under shifting cultivation and mechanisms for payments to shifting cultivators who carry out this work.
Source: SpringerLink
--
|
|
|
|
|
| A toxic side effect of the IMO Sulphur decisionOct 11 2024 4:42AM - robert@rtulip.net
Ships still use sulphur, but dump toxic chemicals in the ocean
https://hakaimagazine.com/news/in-the-baltic-sea-ship-scrubbers-have-caused-millions-of-dollars-in-environmental-damage/
In the Baltic Sea, Ship Scrubbers Have Caused Millions of Dollars Worth of Environmental Damage
The adoption of ship scrubbers—technology meant to clean up dirty fuel—has caused a surge in heavy metal pollution.
by Lina Zeldovich
September 27, 2024 | 850 words, about 4 minutes
In early 2020, people in port cities around the world started breathing a little easier thanks to new regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO)—the overseer of international shipping—that restricted how much sulfur oxide pollution ships could have in their exhaust. Sulfur oxides
also known as SOX gases, can trigger a rash of ill effects, including heart and lung diseases and asthma. Worldwide
sulfur pollution is linked to some 400,000 premature deaths and 14 million new childhood asthma cases each year.
Shipping companies largely complied with the IMO’s new rule. But one of the prime tools in this cleanup effort—devices known as ship scrubbers—had an unfortunate side effect. While the technology has successfully diverted boatloads of pollutants from the air, it has also sent a steady flow of heavy metals into the sea, contaminating marine life and causing millions of dollars worth of damage.
The problem wasn’t negligence or oversight, according to Erik Nøklebye, the CEO of the Swedish shipping company Wallenius Lines, but rather an example of an “imperfect innovation solution.” When the IMO issued its new regulations, says Nøklebye, shipping companies essentially had two options: switch from the default heavy fuel oil to more expensive low-sulfur fuel, or install a ship scrubber—a device that sprays ocean water onto exhaust gases before they leave the engine, capturing the harmful SOX gases as a sulfuric acid solution.
Ship scrubbers come in two types: closed-loop and open-loop. Closed-loop scrubbers store the resulting sludgy, sulfurous mix in a tank that must be emptied at port. Open-loop scrubbers dump that slurry straight into the sea. Ocean water already contains a lot of sulfurous compounds, so many people weren’t too concerned about adding more. And because open-loop scrubbers save space and weight compared with their closed-loop counterparts, many ship owners have favored them.
Much more insidious compounds lurk within fossil fuel ship exhaust, however, including potent toxicants such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And for ships running open-loop scrubbers—or even closed-loop scrubbers that have overtopped their storage tanks—all of this, too, has been going straight into the water. So, over time, ship scrubbers have sent a flow of toxic compounds into coastal waterways worldwide.
“If you only look at sulfur, it doesn’t look too bad,” explains Anna Lunde Hermansson, who studied scrubber pollution as a graduate student at the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. “But if you instead then consider the dangerous particles and heavy metals and organic compounds that you also find in the exhaust, then you see the big problem.”
Some environmental organizations did warn of this outcome when scrubbers first became available. And as Hermansson and her colleagues show in new research, between 2014 and 2022 more than 10?billion?cubic meters of toxic scrubber water was released into the world’s oceans every year. Focusing on the nearby Baltic Sea
the scientists estimate that extra pollution caused more than US $750-million worth of environmental damage—a figure calculated based on models for people’s willingness to pay to avoid marine environmental degradation.
Other scientists back the findings, showing the detrimental effects of ship scrubber water pollution on ocean life. Research shows that when exposed to scrubber water some creatures, such as pelagic copepods
simply die while others, including certain mussels
struggle to develop.
Of the roughly 60,000 large ships that sail the world’s seas, only 4,379 use scrubbers, says Natasha Brown, the head of public information at the IMO. “That’s a small percentage. It’s certainly not a majority of ships,” she says.
According to Brown, scrubbers were never supposed to be the ultimate solution to ships’ sulfur problem. When the IMO issued its sulfur regulation, Brown says the intent was to spur the shipping industry to come up with innovative solutions—whether they be cleaner fuels or new technologies to clean exhaust to acceptable levels. But many shipping companies went for scrubbers as an easier option. Over time, the IMO has responded by tightening regulations on scrubber water discharge, such as by putting limits on its acidity. “It’s a continuous process,” says Brown, adding that the IMO welcomes any new studies so it can revisit or change the guidelines.
Scrubbers do what they set out to do: reduce sulfur pollution. “But I think we, fairly early on, should have discovered that it was more of a stopgap,” says Nøklebye.
That’s why, in June 2024, several shipping industry executives including Nøklebye collaborated with Hermansson’s team to call on the Swedish government to ban open-loop scrubbers, arguing that the devices cause unacceptable damage to marine ecosystems. Shortly after, the Swedish government announced a move to ban water discharges from open-loop scrubbers in its maritime territory starting in July 2025, and from all scrubbers by January 2029. The Danish government followed suit with the same ban dates. Meanwhile, China, Singapore, and Germany had already banned open-loop scrubbers in their coastal waters shortly after ships started installing them.
“Innovations and new ideas are never perfect,” says Nøklebye. But “the industry finally caught onto the fact that this was not the environmental solution that maybe they had hoped for.”
Edited by Colin Schultz
--
Oct 11 2024 5:31AM - Oswald Petersen
Hi Robert,
thanks, but the article does not convince me. If the scrubbers remove all this poisonous stuff from the exhaust and dump it into the water, it was not removed and henceforth blown into the air before the scrubbers were introduced. From there I am sure it also made its way into the oceans, at least the lion share of it. All in all I cannot believe that the ocean input has changed a lot.
Only closed scrubbers, which actually move the poison onshore, do contribute to a cleaner ocean.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth
https://georestoration.earth
https://cool-planet.earth
|
|
|
|
|
| How mainstream climate science endorsed the fantasy of a global warming time machineOct 10 2024 5:12AM - John Nissen
https://theconversation.com/how-mainstream-climate-science-endorsed-the-fantasy-of-a-global-warming-time-machine-225597
--
Oct 10 2024 12:09PM - Doug Grandt
John,
One revealing killer phrase in the final four paragraphs …. don’t you just love the simplicity of “only” … (emphasis added)
The findings of this new paper make it perfectly clear: There is no time machine waiting in the wings. Once 1.5°C lies behind us
we must consider that threshold permanently broken.
There then remains only one road to ambitious mitigation of climate change, and no amount of carbon dioxide removal can absolve us of its inconvenient political implications.
Avoiding climate breakdown demands that we bury the fantasy of overshoot-and-return and with it another illusion as well: that the Paris targets can be met without uprooting the status-quo. One limit after the other will be broken unless we manage to strand fossil fuel assets and curtail opportunities for continuing to profit from oil and gas and coal.
We will not mitigate climate change without confronting and defeating fossil fuel interests. We should expect climate scientists to be candid about this.
We’ve got a long row to hoe
Facetiously,
Doug
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
Oct 10 2024 12:21PM - Doug Grandt
This from the Abstract is even simpler:
Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.
So much to overcome!
Doug
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
Oct 10 2024 2:39PM - Clive Elsworth
Thanks Doug. Yes “Only” is wrong.
It’s like saying the only way to cool a big pan of water on the stove is to take the lid off. But what about turning down the flame? Wouldn’t that work just as well?
i.e. there are two choices: 1) Reduce the incoming heat power, 2) Increase the outgoing heat power. Too many people miss option 1.
Anthony: How about us doing another video where we explain this Energy Budget diagram, used by the IPCC in their reports:
Clive
Oct 10 2024 4:05PM - Alan Kerstein
Cheer up Doug, here’s why. We’re seeing an accumulation of scientific studies and expert opinions saying, in effect, that unless the impossible happens, we’re doomed. These people are our useful idiots because they set up the dichotomy: pursue geoengineering notwithstanding its claimed (and in some cases actual) risks and disadvantages, or … doom. This is straightforward reasoning that people can understand and internalize. On the doom side of the ledger, it would be worthwhile to compile a dossier of studies and expert opinions that, implicitly if not explicitly, foresee inevitable doom, so that the burden of proof does not fall solely on geoengineering advocates. The case is especially strong on the basis of doomists who oppose geoengineering because they are not using their conclusions as a way to promote geoengineering. Of course they might secretly favor geoengineering, so in a twist of fate, we might be their useful idiots, or it could be seen as symbiosis. Whatever, I’m just suggesting another way to skin the cat.
Alan
Oct 10 2024 4:18PM - H simmens
Hi Alan,
Whether we are useful idiots or not I have been told by a fairly well-known scientist who knows a bit or two about geoengineering that there are a lot more folks in private supporting cooling than there are in public.
It’s hard to imagine a more impactful action than for HP - or someone - to identify this cohort for the purposes of organizing a joint letter and press conference announcing their conversion.
The bandwagon effect is very real.
We need a counter point to the solar Geo engineering non-use agreement - a direct climate cooling use agreement.
I am 100% sure this will happen.
Whether it happens in time to make any difference is of course the only question that matters.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
Oct 10 2024 4:31PM - Douglas Grandt
Clive, Alan and Herb,
Just being facetious … I like your ideas!
Let’s do it
And as the donald might say, “only is only” … and I would add ”___________" !
Doug
Oct 10 2024 11:00PM - robert@rtulip.net
Thanks John, here is a comment I have just added at this article.
The weakness of this article is its failure to engage with solar geoengineering. Peer review journal articles explain that sunlight reflection could return temperature to Holocene stability in this century alongside ongoing emissions, with high levels of safety, efficiency and acceptability. Rebrightening and cooling the planet by restoring albedo reflectivity should be the primary short term climate strategy, recognising that public demand for energy systems that produce ongoing CO2 emissions will not allow a rapid energy transition. Solar geoengineering is the only way to buy time while carbon removal methods ramp up. Seeing new energy uses such as AI reinforce that renewable energy is additional and is not a substitute for fossil fuels. Shaving the peak of the heating overshoot can only be achieved with sunlight reflection methods. The authors of this article should explore this massive gap in their argument, given the existential peril.
Regards
Robert Tulip
Oct 11 2024 9:21PM - Dana Woods
Emissions reduction carbon capture (or Cooling methods) or anything, possibly, reversing warming at some point , after lives and life are treated as collateral damage - Still - IDIOTS and SOCIOPATHS running and guiding the world
|
|
|
|
|
| In-field carbon dioxide removal via weathering of crushed basalt applied to acidic tropical agricultural soilOct 11 2024 7:15PM - Geoengineering News
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972406724X
Authors
Fredrick J. Holden, Kalu Davies, Michael I. Bird, Ruby Hume, Hannah Green, David J. Beerling, Paul N. Nelson
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176568
09 October 2024
Highlights
•Field experiment over 5?years with basalt applied at zero or 50?t?ha-1 a-1
•Effects of basalt weathering on soil and drainage flux chemistry quantified.
•Actual carbon dioxide capture low in tropical sugarcane system with acidic soil.
•Weathering of applied basalt was largely due to inherent (reserve) soil acidity.
•Nitric and other acids also contributed more to weathering than carbonic acid.
Abstract
Enhanced weathering (EW) of silicate rocks such as basalt provides a potential carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technology for combatting climate change. Modelling and mesocosm studies suggest significant CDR via EW but there are few field studies. This study aimed to directly measure in-field CDR via EW of basalt applied to sugarcane on acidic (pH?5.8, 0–0.25?m) Ultisol in tropical northeastern Australia, where weathering potential is high. Coarsely crushed basalt produced as a byproduct of gravel manufacture (<5?mm) was applied annually from 2018 to 2022 at 0 or 50?t?ha-1 a-1, incorporated into the soil in 2018 but not in subsequent years. Measurements in 2022 show increased soil pH and extractable Mg and Si at 0–0.25?m depth, indicating significant weathering of the basalt, but showed no increase in crop yield. Soil inorganic carbon content and bicarbonate (HCO3-) flux to deep drainage (1.25?m depth) were measured to quantify CDR in the 2022–2023 wet season (i.e. one year). Soil inorganic carbon was below detection limits. Mean HCO3- flux was 3.15 kmol ha-1 a-1 (±0.40) in the basalt-treated plots and 2.56 kmol ha-1 a-1 (±0.18) in the untreated plots but the difference (0.59 kmol ha-1 a-1 or 0.026?t CO2 ha-1 a-1) was not significant (p?=?0.082). Most weathering of the basalt was attributed to acids stronger than carbonic acid. These were, in decreasing order of contribution, surface-bound protons (inherent soil acidity), nitric acid (from nitrification), organic acids, and acids associated with cation uptake by plants. These results indicate in-field CDR via EW of basalt is low where soil and regolith pH is well below the pKa1 of 6.4 for H2CO3. However, increased soil pH, and the consumption of strong acids by weathering will eventually lead to reduced CO2 emission from soil or evasion from rivers, with continued basalt addition.
Graphical abstract
Unlabelled Image
Source: ScienceDirect
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Microscopic marine organisms can create parachute-like mucus structures that stall CO2 absorption from atmosphereOct 11 2024 11:13AM - Renaud de RICHTER
(RdR Rq: Might partially explain why OIF is not as efficient as expected?)
phys.org /news/2024-10-microscopic-marine-parachute-mucus-stall.html
Microscopic marine organisms can create parachute-like mucus structures that stall CO2 absorption from atmosphere
(also on scitechdaily.com /stanfords-gravity-machine-uncovers-mucus-parachutes-hidden-biological-process-slowing-climate-change/
but the title is misleading): Stanford’s Gravity Machine Uncovers Mucus “Parachutes” – Hidden Biological Process Slowing Climate Change)
Stanford University 10/10/2024
_____
https://phys.org/archive/10-10-2024/
New Stanford-led research unveils a hidden factor that could change our understanding of how oceans mitigate climate change. The study, published Oct. 11 in Science
reveals never-before seen mucus "parachutes" produced by microscopic marine organisms that significantly slow their sinking, putting the brakes on a process crucial for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The surprising discovery implies that previous estimates of the ocean's carbon sequestration potential may have been overestimated, but also paves the way toward improving climate models and informing policymakers in their efforts to slow climate change.
"We haven't been looking the right way," said study senior author Manu Prakash, an associate professor of bioengineering and of oceans in the Stanford School of Engineering and Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.
"What we found underscores the importance of fundamental scientific observation and the need to study natural processes in their true environments. It's critical to our ability to mitigate climate change."
https://youtu.be/KNolGcGoLA0
Video of marine snow sinking in an infinite water column generated by gravity machine. The sinking marine snow interacts with a wide variety of plankton as it travels through the vertical column. Credit: PrakashLab, Stanford
The biological pump
Marine snow—a mixture of dead phytoplankton, bacteria, fecal pellets, and other organic particles—absorbs about a third of human-made carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and shuttles it down to the ocean floor where it is locked away for millennia.
Scientists have known about this phenomenon—known as the biological pump—for some time. However, the exact manner in which these delicate particles fall (the ocean's average depth is 4 kilometers, or 2.5 miles) has remained a mystery until now.
The researchers unlocked the mystery using an unusual invention—a rotating microscope developed in Prakash's lab that flips the problem on its head. The device moves as organisms move within it
simulating vertical travel over infinite distances and adjusting aspects such as temperature, light, and pressure to emulate specific ocean conditions.
Over the past five years, Prakash and his lab members have brought their custom-built microscopes on research vessels to all the world's major oceans—from the Arctic to Antarctica.
On a recent expedition to the Gulf of Maine, they collected marine snow by hanging traps in the water
then rapidly analyzed the particles' sinking process in their rotating microscope.
Since marine snow is a living ecosystem, it is important to make these measurements at sea. The rotating microscope allowed the team to observe marine snow in its natural environment in exquisite detail—instead of a distant lab—for the first time.
The results stunned the researchers. They revealed that marine snow sometimes creates parachute-like mucus structures that effectively double the time the organisms linger in the upper 100 meters of the ocean.
This prolonged suspension increases the likelihood of other microbes breaking down the organic carbon within the marine snow particles and converting it back into readily available organic carbon for other plankton—stalling carbon dioxide absorption from the atmosphere.
Hidden biological processes can affect how the ocean stores carbon
Schematic of gravity machine - a rotating microscope that enables virtual reality arena for plankton and marine snow. The tool enables an infinite field of view microscope in the Z-axis, enabling observation of a sedimenting particle over long periods of time. Credit: Rebecca Konte, PrakashLab, Stanford
Beauty and complexity in the smallest details
The researchers point to their work as an example of observation-driven research, essential to understanding how even the smallest biological and physical processes work within natural systems.
"Theory tells you how a flow around a small particle looks like, but what we saw on the boat was dramatically different," said study lead author Rahul Chajwa, a postdoctoral scholar in the Prakash Lab. "We are at the beginning of understanding these complex dynamics."
This work lays out an important fact. For the last 200 years, scientists have studied life, including plankton, in a two-dimensional plane, trapped in small cover slips under a microscope.
On the other hand, doing microscopy at high resolution is very hard on the high seas. Chajwa and Prakash emphasize the importance of leaving the lab and conducting scientific measurements as close as possible to the environment in which they occur.
Supporting research that prioritizes observation in natural environments should be a priority for public and private organizations that fund science, the researchers argue.
"We cannot even ask the fundamental question of what life does without emulating the environment that it evolved with," Prakash said. "In biology, stripping it away from its environment has stripped away any of our capacity to ask the right questions."
Beyond its importance in directly measuring marine carbon sequestration, the study also reveals the beauty in everyday phenomena. Much like sugar dissolving in coffee, marine snow's descent into the depth of the ocean is a complex process influenced by factors we don't always see or appreciate.
"We take for granted certain phenomena, but the simplest set of ideas can have profound effects," Prakash said. "Observing these details—like the mucus tails of marine snow—opens new doors to understanding the fundamental principles of our world."
The researchers are working to refine their models, integrate the datasets into Earth-scale models, and release an open dataset from the six global expeditions they have conducted so far. This will be the world's largest dataset of direct marine snow sedimentation measurements. They also aim to explore factors that influence mucus production, such as environmental stressors or the presence of certain species of bacteria.
Although the researchers' discovery is a significant jolt to how scientists have thought about tipping points in ocean-based sequestration, Prakash and his colleagues remain hopeful. On a recent expedition off the coast of Northern California, they discovered processes that can potentially speed up carbon sequestration.
"Every time I observe the world of plankton via our tools, I learn something new," Prakash said.
More information: Rahul Chajwa et al, Hidden comet tails of marine snow impede ocean-based carbon sequestration, Science (2024). DOI: 10.1126/science.adl5767. HYPERLINK
ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl5767"www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl5767
_____
Explore further
Microplastics may slow the rate at which carbon is pulled from the sea surface to the depths
_____
--
Oct 11 2024 2:18PM - Michael Hayes
Farming and releasing giant larvaceans can likely speed up the C sequestration process. Conversely, the loss of this particular population will likely slow the C sequestration:
https://oceanbites.org/house-of-mucus/
|
|
|
|
|
| Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement in Deep Water Formation Regions Under Low and High Emission PathwaysOct 11 2024 2:40PM - Geoengineering News
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF004213
Authors
Tanvi Nagwekar, Cara Nissen, Judith Hauck
First published: 05 October 2024
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004213
Abstract
Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) is an ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) method to mitigate climate change. Studies to characterize regional differences in OAE efficiencies and biogeochemical effects are still sparse. As subduction regions play a pivotal role for anthropogenic carbon uptake and centennial storage, we here evaluate OAE efficiencies in the subduction regions of the Southern Ocean, the Northwest Atlantic, and the Norwegian-Barents Sea region. Using the ocean biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3, we simulate continuous OAE globally and in the subduction regions under high (SSP3-7.0) and low (SSP1-2.6) emission scenarios. The OAE efficiency calculated by two different metrics is higher (by 8%–30%) for SSP3-7.0 than for SSP1-2.6 due to a lower buffer factor in a high-CO2 world. All subduction regions show a CDR potential (0.23–0.31; PgC
uptake per Pg alkaline material) consistent with global OAE for both emission scenarios. Calculating the efficiency as the ratio of excess dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) to excess alkalinity shows that the Southern Ocean and the Northwest Atlantic are as efficient as the global ocean (0.79–0.85), while the Norwegian-Barents Sea region has a lower efficiency (0.65–0.75). The subduction regions store a fraction of excess carbon below 1 km that is 1.9 times higher than the global ocean. The excess surface alkalinity and thus CO2 uptake and storage follow the mixed-layer depth seasonality, with the majority of the excess CO2 flux occurring in summer at shallow mixed layer depths. This study therefore highlights that subduction regions can be efficient for OAE if optimal deployment strategies are developed.
Key Points
Southern Ocean and Northwest Atlantic Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement efficiencies are akin to the global ocean and larger than in the Norwegian-Barents Sea region
The subduction regions can store a fraction of excess carbon in the deep ocean that is nearly two times higher than in the global ocean
Seasonal mixed layer depth variations govern excess surface alkalinity concentrations and thus the excess carbon uptake and storage
Plain Language Summary
Increasing atmospheric
concentrations demand urgent reductions in the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to limit the increase in global air temperatures to
C relative to preindustrial conditions. To compensate for/counteract the small fraction of unavoidable emissions, it will also be necessary to implement a portfolio of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods. In this study, we focus on the ocean-based CDR method Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE), which enhances oceanic carbon uptake and can thus aid in atmospheric CO2 reduction. Oceanic subduction regions are key for anthropogenic carbon uptake and its centennial storage. Therefore, we simulate OAE in the deep and bottom water formation regions of the Southern Ocean, Northwest Atlantic and the Norwegian-Barents Sea region to assess their carbon uptake and storage efficiency compared to the global ocean. We find that the subduction regions exhibit equivalent carbon uptake efficiency to the global ocean, and are nearly two times more effective in deep ocean carbon storage with respect to OAE. Seasonal mixed layer depth variability, however, influences the resulting surface alkalinity concentrations and thus CO2 uptake and DIC accumulation. Therefore, our study emphasizes that the subduction regions can be efficient for OAE when appropriate deployment strategies are developed.
Source: AGU
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Role Of Agriculture In The Carbon Cycle: Carbon Sequestration TechniquesOct 11 2024 6:19AM - Geoengineering News
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abhishek-Malav/publication/384292448_ROLE_OF_AGRICULTURE_IN_THE_CARBON_CYCLE_CARBON_SEQUESTRATION_TECHNIQUES/links/66f310ab553d245f9e34d5fa/ROLE-OF-AGRICULTURE-IN-THE-CARBON-CYCLE-CARBON-SEQUESTRATION-TECHNIQUES.pdf
Authors
Abhishek Malav, Anil Choudhary, Mohit Meena, Mohit Nagar, Narayan Nagar
Abstract
Soil carbon sequestration is the process of putting atmospheric CO2 into a land unit's soil through plants. Soil carbon sequestration has multiple benefits, including boosting food and nutritional security, water quality, biodiversity, and recycling. The optimal level of soil organic carbon (SOC) in the root zone is 1.5-2.0 percent. SOC is affected by land use, soil management, and farming practices. More than 50% of the total C pool is located between 0.3 and 1 m deep. Soils in agro ecosystems are depleted of SOC and deteriorated. To restore soil quality, employing optimum management practices, such as conservation agriculture, can increase SOC concentration and provide a positive C budget. India has launched significant projects under its National Green Hydrogen Mission, with a budget allocation of? 19,744 crore (approximately $2.6 billion USD).
Source: ResearchGate
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Shooting down overshootOct 11 2024 9:27AM - PDT, David Hawkins
Hi Greg,
The takeaway I got from the paper is, as you say, our objective needs to be constraining the carbon content of the atmosphere; global average temperatures are a convenient metric to track but the numerous underlying changes resulting from the energy imbalance driven by GHGs in the atmosphere are what causes harm.
David
Oct 11 2024 12:01PM - Greg Rau
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9
"Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement1. This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policyHYPERLINK
ttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9#ref-CR2"2,3
YPERLINK "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9#ref-CR4"4,5. Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it. We find that achieving declining global temperatures can limit long-term climate risks compared with a mere stabilization of global warming
including for sea-level rise and cryosphere changes. However, the possibility that global warming could be reversed many decades into the future might be of limited relevance for adaptation planning today. Temperature reversal could be undercut by strong Earth-system feedbacks resulting in high near-term and continuous long-term warming6
YPERLINK "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9#ref-CR7"7. To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes. Yet, technical, economic and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales8
YPERLINK "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9#ref-CR9"9. Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks."
GR This still doesn't address the 1000+ Gts excess CO2 in the atmosphere now and that will remain in the atmosphere long after 1.5C warming is reached. Targets should be based on specific atmos CO2 concentrations not global temps.
--
Oct 11 2024 1:31PM - Greg Rau
Meant to say that stabilizing global pCO2 at some elevated value is insufficient if we want to return the Earth's habitability to something more aligned with the Holocene/pre-industrial. Only CDR can make this happen on timescales shorter than millenia. Prolonged excess air CO2 is also about ocean chemistry effects not just climate.
G
Oct 11 2024 2:21PM - David Hawkins
Agreed. Mining and releasing to the biosphere a few hundred million years worth of stored carbon is both an energy imbalance problem (with all the knock-on impacts) and an ecosystem disruption problem.
|
|
|
|
|
| Activated Carbon Fiber Felt Composites for the Direct Air Capture of Carbon DioxideOct 10 2024 6:19AM - Geoengineering News
https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.202401188
Authors
Mani Modayil Korah, Kyle Culp, Klaus S. Lackner, Matthew D. Green
First published: 21 September 2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202401188
Abstract
Negative emission technologies to mitigate climate change require innovative solutions for the direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 from the atmosphere. K2CO3 readily reacts with CO2 to form KHCO3; however, bulk K2CO3 suffers from very slow sorption kinetics. By incorporating K2CO3 into activated carbon (AC) fiber felts, the sorption kinetics were significantly improved by increasing the surface area of K2CO3 in contact with air. The AC-K2CO3 fiber composite felts are flexible, cheap, easy to manufacture, chemically stable, and show excellent DAC capacity and (de)sorption rates, with stable performance up to ten cycles. Cyclic testing was demonstrated with 4 h sorption and 0.5 h desorption intervals. The best composite felts collected an average of 478 µmol of CO2 per gram of composite during 4 h of exposure to ambient air (19% relative humidity) that had a CO2 concentration of 400-450 ppm after regeneration at 125 °C in an air furnace. An increase in the dew point temperature from 0 °C to 12 °C decreased sorption performance of the composite felts by 40%.
Source: Chemistry Europe
--
|
|
|
|
|
| Enhancing Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration: A Review with Some Research NeedsOct 10 2024 7:16PM - Geoengineering News
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/12/10/151
Authors
Kaiyi Zhang, Zehao Liu, Bruce A. McCarl and Chengcheng J. Fei
https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12100151
25 September 2024
Abstract
The US rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021 with a targeted 50–52% reduction in net GHG emissions in 2030 relative to 2005. Within the US’s nationally determined contributions, several land-based mitigation options were submitted, targeting the removal of 0.4–1.3 GtCO2 yr-1 in 2030 compared to the net flux in 2010. Acknowledging disagreement has existed on both technological and economic feasibility levels of soil C sequestration adoption and practices, this review explores and evaluates the research findings and needs for six concepts: (1) permanence; (2) additionality; (3) leakage; (4) uncertainty; (5) transaction costs; and (6) heat-trapping ability of different gases. These concepts are crucial for the effective implementation of soil C sequestration projects since they help establish robust and integrated methodologies for measurement, verification, and issuance of carbon credits. In turn, they help ensure that environmental, social, and economic benefits are accurately assessed and credibly reported, enhancing the integrity of carbon markets and contributing to global climate mitigation efforts. This review also evaluates the existing and potential market opportunities for agricultural production with C sequestration and “climate- smart” farming practices. Current barriers to, research needs for, and policy considerations regarding soil C sequestration strategies are also stated.
Source: MDPI
--
|
|
|