Melting snow aids absorption of carbon dioxide

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Greg Rau

unread,
Oct 31, 2017, 1:47:52 PM10/31/17
to Carbon Dioxide Removal

"It appears that something good can come from something bad. Although rising global temperatures are causing seasonal snow cover to melt earlier in the spring, this allows for the snow-free boreal forests to absorb more carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. "

GR - On the other hand, what is the loss of snow cover (and grain in boreal forest cover?) doing to Earth's solar reflectivity and global warming?


David J Beerling

unread,
Oct 31, 2017, 2:30:04 PM10/31/17
to Greg Rau, Carbon Dioxide Removal
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/full/408187a0.html

Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo

Richard A. Betts

  1. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, The Met Office , Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK

Correspondence to: Richard A. Betts Correspondence should be addressed to the author (e-mail: Email:  rab...@meto.gov.uk).

Topof page

Abstract

Carbon uptake by forestation is one method proposed1 to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and so limit the radiative forcing of climate change2. But the overall impact of forestation on climate will also depend on other effects associated with the creation of new forests. In particular, the albedo of a forested landscape is generally lower than that of cultivated land, especially when snow is lying3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and decreasing albedo exerts a positive radiative forcing on climate. Here I simulate the radiative forcings associated with changes in surface albedo as a result of forestation in temperate and boreal forest areas, and translate these forcings into equivalent changes in local carbon stock for comparison with estimated carbon sequestration potentials10, 11, 12. I suggest that in many boreal forest areas, the positive forcing induced by decreases in albedo can offset the negative forcing that is expected from carbon sequestration. Some high-latitude forestation activities may therefore increase climate change, rather than mitigating it as intended.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1088033743.6826704.1509471929557%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Oct 31, 2017, 3:30:44 PM10/31/17
to David Beerling, RAU greg, Carbon Dioxide Removal, geoengineering


This interesting debate (on CDR list, cross posted) is further informed by recent work, showing that albedo has a significant additional CDR effect. Intuitively, this suggests that snow is preferable to high latitude forests. Pasted below 

Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden

Solar geoengineering is no substitute for cutting emissions, but could nevertheless help reduce the atmospheric carbon burden. In the extreme, if solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5, the carbon burden may be reduced by ∼100 GTC, equivalent to 12–26% of twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2.




On 31 Oct 2017 18:30, "David J Beerling" <d.j.be...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/full/408187a0.html

Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo

Richard A. Betts

  1. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, The Met Office , Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK

Correspondence to: Richard A. Betts Correspondence should be addressed to the author (e-mail: Email:  rab...@meto.gov.uk).

Topof page

Abstract

Carbon uptake by forestation is one method proposed1 to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and so limit the radiative forcing of climate change2. But the overall impact of forestation on climate will also depend on other effects associated with the creation of new forests. In particular, the albedo of a forested landscape is generally lower than that of cultivated land, especially when snow is lying3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and decreasing albedo exerts a positive radiative forcing on climate. Here I simulate the radiative forcings associated with changes in surface albedo as a result of forestation in temperate and boreal forest areas, and translate these forcings into equivalent changes in local carbon stock for comparison with estimated carbon sequestration potentials10, 11, 12. I suggest that in many boreal forest areas, the positive forcing induced by decreases in albedo can offset the negative forcing that is expected from carbon sequestration. Some high-latitude forestation activities may therefore increase climate change, rather than mitigating it as intended.

On 31 Oct 2017 17:47, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"It appears that something good can come from something bad. Although rising global temperatures are causing seasonal snow cover to melt earlier in the spring, this allows for the snow-free boreal forests to absorb more carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. "

GR - On the other hand, what is the loss of snow cover (and grain in boreal forest cover?) doing to Earth's solar reflectivity and global warming?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CALsoL5_1M%3Dch2vHp6okKSvcRmfw2%3DkAS1ETcWwF3b1brg2VLew%40mail.gmail.com.

voglerlake

unread,
Nov 1, 2017, 1:18:17 AM11/1/17
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Andrew and List,

Stratospheric aerosol injection that utilizes sulfur has never been, to the best of my knowledge, properly modeled for the polar regions. In the book that Keith published he mentions that a General Circulation Model was used to show that there is no polar issue yet the GCM is not adequate for the polar regions, never has been and never will be. Most people that are knowledgeable with the different models, especially polar specialist, will confirm this.

First order effect:

The basic chemistry of polar stratospheric clouds shows us that sulfur does play a very large role in generating the most common form of polar stratospheric clouds. These clouds are well known for trapping heat over extensive geological areas of the polar regions.

As such, between the lack of adequate modeling and very apparent chemistry and thermodynamics, it's beginning to be rather difficult to take the entire concept of stratospheric aerosol injection seriously; especially as a form of carbon dioxide removal.

Warming the polar regions does not offer a realistic carbon dioxide removal regimen. The opposite is the most plausible outcome.

Second order events:

I believe it is reasonable to expect that the sulfur will accumulate in the polar regions as stratospheric winds are always poleward and that polar stratospheric cloud production will increase due to the additional sulfur and that the artificially produced polar stratospheric clouds will trap heat. This is all clear and obvious.

This artificial warming of the poles will further destabilize the polar vortex systems which, in turn, will easily lead to a wide spectrum of scenarios that release CO2 from the environment; not sequester it.

This second order effect of artificially warming the poles will be devastating on many societal and the environmental levels.

I'm well prepared to offer supportive citations for my position on this issue if anyone in this forum wishes to champion Kieth's concept. However, everything that I've mentioned in the above statement is easily verified using very simple Google searches.

This isn't brain surgery; it's just global atmospheric physics.

Best regards,

Michael

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages