Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia.

[Jim Baird]

https://studio.youtube.com/video/0QnX3HANrlo

 

A target of zero degrees of warming from the preindustrial level is neither ambition nor unachievable with an ocean heat focused climate policy.

 

To fail to immediately address the total Earth System Sensitivity is the ultimate in procrastination, false economy and supreme disservice to future generations.

 

Jim Baird

[Jim Baird]

Apologies.

 

Doug Grandt pointed out the link is wrong. It should be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QnX3HANrlo

 

Thanks

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000e01d9a607%24d0ab00f0%24720102d0%24%40gwmitigation.com.

[Robert Chris]

You don't need to know much about climate science to grasp the fact that the ecosphere is an almost infinitely complex adaptive system with interconnections and positive and negative feedback loops all over the place.  Any intervention in the system will have impacts elsewhere, and any large interventions will have commensurately larger impacts elsewhere, and not necessarily in the same places as the smaller ones.  The  complexity of the ecosystem makes it impossible to predict all, or indeed many, of those impacts, and even where the site of impact might be predictable, there will be uncertainty about its scale and timing.  This path dependency is the reason that the more precise a prediction, the less accurate it will be. 

Any intervention, or combination of interventions, intended to have a material impact on global surface temperature is going to be a very substantial intervention.  Modelling is vital and will give some clues but will never be truly predictive.  Climate Interventions must be trialled at small scale and augmented on a trial and error basis, enhancing and replicating what works and abandoning what doesn't.  That takes time and investment.  Shame we've wasted three decades.

Climate scientists need to think post-normal science and wickedness.  Climate intervention impacts will be valued differently by different communities, making international agreement difficult.

Note Margaret Leinen's remarks at this weeks NAS workshop on geoengineering.  She was unable to identify any preferred ocean-based intervention for want of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment for any proposed  intervention at climate changing scale.  That said, no EIA can predict all the issues that might arise, so while such a review is prudent, action will always entail risk.  The challenge is first to assess that risk and second to convince the policymakers how to take it in a managed way.  It's that last bit that's the most difficult.

Regards

Robert Chris

On 23/06/2023 22:57, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Excellent point.  Same with several other forms of geoengineering: fiddling with clouds: the feedbacks and other changes are not accounted for.  If you brighten clouds in one area, it has impacts in surrounding areas.
Kevin

On 6/24/23 9:18 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:

Not sure this is relevant to carbon dioxide removal, but we did a simulation in a coupled carbon-climate atmosphere-ocean model in which the tropical surface temperatures were cooled by mixing the heat deeper into the ocean.

The result was, in the perturbation, that the cooler ocean surface caused air to ascend over land and descend over the oceans, which blew away most clouds over the ocean. The resulting change in albedo resulted in additional warming. 

One hundred years later, the planet was warmer than if the ocean pumping did not occur.

I am not saying this cannot be made to work, and that our particular scenario is in any way representative of other related scenarios, but proposals should be examined in models, because what you think will happen does not always happen.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com.

-- 
Kevin E Trenberth				 
Distinguished Scholar			 		 
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/
Email: tren...@ucar.edu		ph +64 27 771 4868
Honorary Academic, Department of Physics, Auckland University, NZ 
Mail address:
127A Churchill Road, Rothesay Bay
Auckland 0630, New Zealand

Please see my new book: "The changing flow of energy through the climate system"
Cambridge University Press.
Paperback 978-1-108-97246-8
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Energy-Through-Climate-System/dp/1108972462/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Trenberth&qid=1639208299&s=books&sr=1-2 

[Jim Baird]

Ken, my understanding of your experiment was you increased the background vertical diffusivity in the top 1000 m of the water column to 60 cm2 s-1. This is like the ultimate shaking of the pop bottled before you release the lid. This would be a massive releasing of ocean dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. Little wonder then the surface temperature soon spiked.

 

Thermodynamic Geoengineering doesn’t move water. It only moves heat as the latent heat of the working fluid. It is assumed the surface temperature will be 1.8C the system is fully built out and it would decrease only decrease only .008 degrees for the next 226 years.

 

Compare this to the 0.2C per year warming the top 5 meters of the ocean is experiencing today with the climate experiment that is currently being undertaken.

 

Whereas you upswelled  60 at 60 cm2 s-1, heat released at 1000 meters will diffuse back to the surface at 1 cm/day to the bottom of the mixed layer and 1 m/day through that layer thus ~ 226 years. After which the surface would be at the preindustrial level which would only to have to be cooled only .008C every year for the next 3000 years to compensate for the trapped heat that is being converted to work.

 

IMHO the concerns that have been expressed about this have been overwrought and the cloud implications are a red herring.

 

Jim

From: Kevin Trenberth
Sent: June 23, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>
Cc: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com; Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Al Binger <newy...@gmail.com>; JPAB...@stthomas.edu; david...@uchicago.edu; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia.

 

Excellent point.  Same with several other forms of geoengineering: fiddling with clouds: the feedbacks and other changes are not accounted for.  If you brighten clouds in one area, it has impacts in surrounding areas.
Kevin

On 6/24/23 9:18 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:

Not sure this is relevant to carbon dioxide removal, but we did a simulation in a coupled carbon-climate atmosphere-ocean model in which the tropical surface temperatures were cooled by mixing the heat deeper into the ocean.

 

The result was, in the perturbation, that the cooler ocean surface caused air to ascend over land and descend over the oceans, which blew away most clouds over the ocean. The resulting change in albedo resulted in additional warming. 

One hundred years later, the planet was warmer than if the ocean pumping did not occur.

 

I am not saying this cannot be made to work, and that our particular scenario is in any way representative of other related scenarios, but proposals should be examined in models, because what you think will happen does not always happen.

 

 

 

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 2:04 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com.

[Ken Caldeira]

Who knows?

Any perturbation large enough to have a substantive climate effect is also likely to produce some unanticipated outcomes.

Agreed however that the simulations we have done may not be germane. Nevertheless, if you are cooling the Earth from the ocean surface, that is going to influence land-sea temperature contrasts which will have dynamical effects.

A more concerning issue is that I for the past decade have been trying to hire a good postdoc to investigate these sorts of issues in more detail using a climate model, and I have been unable to attract an excellent candidate who would like to do so (despite being able to attract good postdocs to work on other topic areas).

Bright and highly motivated early career scientists apparently do not look at evaluating ocean carbon and climate proposals as a good career move (or they do not have the kind of mathematical skills and sensibility needed to do the job well).

Best,

Ken

[Dennis Amoroso]

When we remove farm runoff from entering the oceans the resulting shift to normal marine ecosystems cools the water by 1.7 deg F which would directly affect global climate shifts 

We eliminate chemical farm runoff in the millions of tons by replacing chemical fertilizers in agriculture. 
Let’s follow Aukums Razor and try the simplest thing first. 

Dennis Amoroso President 

Advanced Materials Processing Inc

On Jun 23, 2023, at 5:27 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:



<image001.png>

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0FmhFbc97ynhacfc-rwffrBm7Poe-BVDs3Pbktm1vbmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baird]

As a career move, I have researched this on my own dime for 40 years. Some would say it was a dumb move. I consider it an imperative for my grandkids.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0FmhFbc97ynhacfc-rwffrBm7Poe-BVDs3Pbktm1vbmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

The current efforts in the development of a widely acceptable, crosscutting, MRV value model for CDR technologies is likely helping the CDR field gain support.

Coupling non-CDR mitigation technologies to specific CDR technologies may help the non-CDR mitigation techs get noticed at the business/policy levels. However, getting the champions of one method interested in coupling 'their tech' with any other's tech is rather hard, I've tried. The ego factors are rather large.

I'm hoping that a solid universal CDR MRV standard will help keep the need for logic above that of ego, atleast in the CDR field. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0FmhFbc97ynhacfc-rwffrBm7Poe-BVDs3Pbktm1vbmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baird]

Chris I look forward to your presentation to the HPAC group on Thursday.

 

I would be interested to know how you explain how GESAMP ruled out Thermodynamic Geoengineering on the basis of a scientific fairy tale per the following.

 

Jim Baird

 

 

From: Ken Caldeira

Sent: June 23, 2023 5:27 PM
To: Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>