280 or 350

[Jeff Suchon]

I've seen 350 alot and some 280 ppms CO2 for getting to a non heating climate. Is there a solid number range to set as a goal.. assuming we can even get to 400? Thx

[Clive Elsworth]

It would be nice if it was that simple wouldn’t it?

 

It depends how much methane and other strong greenhouse gases are still in the atmosphere, and how much ice and cloud albedo has been lost. But then land-use changes have generally increased albedo.

 

That said, Jim Hansen suggested 350 about 15 years ago, and an organisation was created by Bill McKibben of that name: 350.org 

On 13/02/2024 17:52 GMT Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

I've seen 350 alot and some 280 ppms CO2 for getting to a non heating climate. Is there a solid number range to set as a goal.. assuming we can even get to 400? Thx

 

--
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/f917529c-ed5f-45c3-ac9f-9004e8e73f1fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Tom Goreau]

350 is a death sentence for coral reefs and will flood all coastlines.

 

The needed value for the stable climate of the last 10,000 years is Preindustrial, about 270 ppm.

 

Anyone saying 350 is a safe goal does not understand what paleoclimatology is telling us.

 

This is not based on models at all, but on empirical real world geology!

 

T. J. Goreau, 1990, Balancing atmospheric carbon dioxide, AMBIO, 19: 230-236

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/942917260.757980.1707847309616%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Jeff

The fixation on arbitrary numerical targets should be understood as a rhetorical device that serves to simplify an inherently complex policy issue.  Whether the target s 350 or 280 or any other number below its current level of 420, the policy actions are the same - reduce emissions and remove atmospheric GHGs.  What the 'right' level might be is of absolutely no climatic consequence today.  The only thing that matters is that emissions are reduced and GHGs are removed and that both are done in earnest.  It won't be until that happens that reliable evidence will emerge as to the amount and rate of emissions reductions sand GHG removals needed to start making a significant climatic impact.  Future policymakers will have more than sufficient opportunity to ramp up the rate and amount, or slow it down and cap it, depending upon the evidence as it emerges.  Those future decisions will be taken long before we get to 280 or even 350, so what target level is set today has zero impact on the policy action required today.

The same applies equally to the 1.5C and 2C warming targets.  Imagine that someone warns you that if you drive at 70mph into a brick wall, you're highly likely to die.  At what point do you slow down?  Probably before you hit the wall!

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/942917260.757980.1707847309616%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Jeff Suchon]

I know targets can be meaningless but we need goals to hit I gather. As long as Earth's climate is hospitable.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Whether we need targets is a moot point.  What we need is action.  Whether having targets is a necessary prior condition for action is a question I'll leave open.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a3446e79-b31b-468c-b847-2ead4bc5f813n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Suchon]

A Super Big Amen to that Robert!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/01cfa45d-d77f-4f56-bb59-0e2c85f622ef%40gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Herb

I totally agree with you and what you say underscores the point I was trying to make - and obviously failed!

The science is unequivocal that GHG levels need to be reduced - a lot and fast.  In that sense we don't need targets to initiate action because we know that anything that reduces GHG levels is moving in the right direction.  Moreover, anyone with a modest grasp of high school maths could work out that if you want to reduce GHG levels to any significant extent when you're still pumping out 40GtCO2/yr, the action has to be at scale and sooner rather than later.  We don't need targets for that.

BUT, and it's a massive but, as you explain well in your final paragraph, because of the way our socio-economic system is structured, you need to get social licence to do that stuff.  Getting social licence is where the rhetoric comes in.  It follows that what's important is having a target.  The precise level of the target doesn't really matter so long as it's below a certain threshold.  350 is fine, even 375 would be OK because the action today to deliver either of those would be much the same.  What the 'right' level is a meaningless question because it's normative.  We have to leave that determination to future people.  Our responsibility is to set off down a road that gives them the choice.

Regards

Robert

On 13/02/2024 18:44, H simmens wrote:

 Jeff and Robert,

I disagree. 

The science regarding what Climate and Ecosystem impacts would be at various levels of CO2 and Co2e below our current 422/1.5-7 C level is woefully lacking and absolutely needs to be developed on an urgent basis. 

I assume that a good part of the reason that such analysis is missing is because almost no one in the Climate commissariat is bold or imaginative enough be advocating that planetary GHG concentrations and temperatures be sharply reduced from where they currently reside. 

I would argue that credible scenarios demonstrating the state of the earth system at various lower temperature and GHG levels is a necessary prerequisite to developing the social license and political support that might lead to world leaders actually taking action in an attempt to achieve a restoration future - as opposed to the dystopian future all but guaranteed by our present insane trajectory that focuses only on slowing the rate of increase of temperature and GHG concentrations. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 13, 2024, at 1:28 PM, Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKHEY4fTKUa11t8bH618qA2it7796C6u2KUMgaFr6%2BzLRCMNjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Robert,

The target that HPAC set in its Oct22 paper 

  

Is well below 1° C. We chose that for several reasons:

- it tracks the language of the current Paris goal of well below 2° C - all we’re doing is substituting one for two

- it doesn’t attempt to be overly precise given that so little analysis has been done of what the consequences of a goal might be

- It’s a lot more understandable than a PPM goal

That said any average surface temperature goal will still be difficult for most people to understand and cannot capture the temperatures extremes that catch the public’s eye as they destabilize every earth system. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:00 PM, robert...@gmail.com wrote:



[Shannon A. Fiume]

Robert:

As one who has studied the magnitude of differences in what those numbers mean, they are not a fixation, nor arbitrary. Statements claiming they are 'a rhetorical device to simplify a complex issue' is offensive as it dismisses the science behind their significance. If anything these numbers often complicate the topic as they have an intricate relationship to climate and temperature. They have an involved meaning in shaping temperature targets and the amount of effort necessary to achieve such a target.

There is a huge difference in the amount of effort involved to achieve 400ppm vs 350 ppm vs 280 ppm. This difference would effect policy as it would change the timing of when and how much fossil fuel free CDR to scale to, and how much very large funders would have to earmark possibly a magnitude above and beyond the usual funding in amplifying normal market forces.

There is a huge difference in the amount of climate damage that is highly likely to occur at 450 ppm, 400 ppm, and lower targets, assuming tipping points were not exceeded during the journey to the lower target. (See AR6 SYR Figure SPM.3, Figure SPM.4 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures)

1.5ºC was temporarily reached last year, and the yearly average CO₂ concentration reached 421.08 ppm.

Back to Jeff's original question,

Is there a solid number range for a set goal? Not directly. The lowest globally agreed upon goal is set in the Paris agreement, but left open to aspiration, is to hold below 1.5ºC. Climate modeling puts this at greater than 400 ppm and lower than 450ppm.

If we were to reduce emissions as low as possible (before applying CDR and SRM) to reach a very minimal amount of yearly emissions, and then apply scaled fossil-fuel CDR we could reach targets lower than 1.5ºC.

Personally, I think in order to be good stewards to the planet and everything on it, we ought to seek 280 ppm by century's end, which is to say we would need to not only hold to 1.5ºC by the swiftest effort to net zero, but we then need to have scaled fossil fuel free CDR on the order of a removal of 50 GtCO₂/year (including of Nature Based solutions that increase NPP and biomass to soil storage to store about 10GtCO₂ year) for about 20 years, then decreasing to about - 25 GtCO₂ yearly till the rest of this century. And during this time we ought to phase out fossil fuels. I modeled that pathway as the experimental pathway 300x2050: https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.170365323.31209497/v1, that I presented at AGU2023. Although, in the poster and preprint (https://doi.org/10.31223/x5k37c), I only discuss removal quantities and not climate interventions or specific solutions.

An earlier version of my pathway is also shown in the book Climate Restoration (8-3, 8-4): The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race by Peter Fiekowsky and Carole Douglis. In the book Peter and Carole chart CDR and methane oxidation strategies. (My pathway hits less than 1ºC by 2050.)

Also, as Herb Simmens has said, their group HPAC seeks well below 1ºC by century's end.

The only other published work that seeks 1ºC is: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000234

Ideally for the best climate we'd like fully fossil free scaled CDR to follow reaching net-zero. For the technical folks here, that could mean a need for outsized fossil fuel free scaled CDR in the mid 2030s. Or it could mean only outsized scaled fossil fuel free CDR at 2050, or later.

A topic for another list is accelerating clean tech to accelerate net zero to close that gap in the carbon budget which is presently on the path to overshoot. This is sooner and more urgent, but a different set of folks than those on this list. Contact me directly if interested in working on this.

Best,

~~sa

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/58508900-3067-4ca4-ad67-8443dff23963%40gmail.com.

-- 
Shannon A. Fiume
http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbon
https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!

[Jeff Suchon]

Good answer. Go for the gold and don't settle for the silver. We don't even go for the bronze yet.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ddcd86b2-649c-46dc-8533-e6dd76f27365%40autofracture.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Herb

A temperature target probably makes more sense than a ppm target.  Certainly more relatable for most people.  Moreover ppm is only an intermediate target because it really is the temperature that we need to reduce, so a temperature target also allows policy to encompass SRM.  I realise that SRM also affects ppm but that's a level of detail that is strictly for the climate nerds.

Regards

Robert

[Jeff Suchon]

A ppm target is good because people will know and feel comfortable that even though the temp drops with MCB or SAI they won't fear a rapid heat rebound if those methods get interrupted, eg, war. I think a ppm target is necessary for acceptability.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Shannon

I certainly didn't intend to offend the science behind the targets.  Your response nicely highlights their pluses and minuses.

You make cogent arguments for your choice of targets.  Others make different cogent arguments for their choice of targets.  Setting targets is largely a waste of intellectual energy and a source of immense disputation that gets in the way of getting things done.

The most critical point to make is that the science behind these targets is far from settled.  Hansen et al's Pipeline paper could not be a better proof of that.  If their revelations are closer to the truth than the IPCC orthodoxy, the targets all need to be changed if you want to avoid abrupt climate change events in the not too distant future.

When you cut to the chase the prudent policy is as aggressive a reduction as can possibly be made in emissions to bring ppm down as fast as possible, coupled with as rapid a ramping up of some form (or forms yet to be determined) of SRM as is feasible, to restore GSAT to a stable level below 1C rise above pre-industrial.  (Personally, I'm not much interested in GGR because I can't see how that can be done at sufficient scale and speed to make an early enough difference to GSAT - I appreciate that others have a different view.  I'm open to be convinced if someone can show me a credible technology.  To avoid confusion, I'm referring only to GGR technologies that could feasibly be scaled fast enough to make a meaningful contribution to averting widespread societal collapse from global warming and the resources for which would not be more effectively devoted to emissions reduction and SRM.) The requirement to do these as fast as possible renders nugatory all the debate about doing this that or the other by 2030, 2050 or whenever.  All such targets are arbitrary, although some are slightly less arbitrary than others, and we have no reliable means of modelling their precise trajectories because modelling is an inescapably imprecise science.  The greatest surprise would be a future with no surprises.  If you genuinely believe that out current trajectory is highly likely to lead to widespread societal collapse in the not too distant future, then arguing about what you have to do by when is just a distraction, a process of inventing excuses not to do as much as we can as fast as we can.  As has been said elsewhere, later is too late.

The sane response to an emergency is to overreact.  There's always time to take your foot of the accelerator when the danger has passed.

That said, I've no objection to using targets as rhetorical devices.  When it comes to the politics of responding to climate change what's good is what works.  If targets can help, then let's use them, but don't let us fall into the trap of believing that the targets are somehow sacred.  The targets are normative and will be continuously reinterpreted as we progress along whatever path we end up following.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKHEY4chrJgk4%2BtKZc_3XU4ENjyE8y%2BLP9kGbeanBNr%3D4JR6bA%40mail.gmail.com.

[pfieko]

In the climate restoration field, we have a simple, undisputed answer: "300 ppm CO2 is the highest morally acceptable CO2 target. The highest CO2 level humans have ever survived long-term is 300 ppm (about 330,000 years ago). Any goal higher than that is speculation, essentially playing Russian roulette with our children. "

Assuming that you're not comfortable playing Russian roulette with our children, just say, "Below 300 ppm".

Peter

[robert...@gmail.com]

No problem with a ppm target but it is secondary to the temperature target.  It's heat that does the damage not too much CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's important to distinguish between the direct climate effects of GHGs and the feedback effects.  According to Hansen the split is 30/70 with feedbacks being the lion's share.  

The termination shock issue is greatly overplayed.  It's one of several dragons dreamt up by fertile minds to scare the ill-informed.  Moral hazard is another.  A small number of people have great responsibility for making these out to be big problems when they are nothing of the sort. 

Regards

Robert

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Peter

I'm afraid I'm unmoved by the 'playing Russian roulette with our children' spiel.  It's an emotive argument that largely ignores the real world dynamics of the various complex adaptive systems of which humanity is a member.  I see no special reason to prefer the interests of our children against those of people living in the more distant future.  The homeostasis you seek will be restored naturally (which includes humanity's role in the process) and humanity will be reshaped to fit into the niches that are then available from time to time.  Human intervention to restore that homeostasis is highly unlikely to be the primary force in delivering the desired results because we don't have sufficient understanding or control of the factors on which they depend.

The best we can do is follow the path I set out in my response to Shannon - overreact with emissions reductions and SRM and take our foot off the accelerator when we have evidence that the danger is subsiding.

The restoration objective is much like the setting of targets.  A potentially powerful rhetorical device but of little real substance.  Keep with it if it's succeeding at reducing emissions or GSAT but abandon it if it isn't.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9ccd8e2a-68e1-4624-9355-f7882f51a3d4n%40googlegroups.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Rob

I'm all for educating the public about EEI but it doesn't shrink the problem or make its resolution less overwhelming.  It simply doesn't matter how you slice and dice this cake, it's the same cake.  The reality of what is needed for an effective response is what's overwhelming and that doesn't change depending on how you choose to characterise the problem.  Making small changes in EEI is far from trivial.

Regards

Robert

On 14/02/2024 00:32, rob de laet wrote:

I think we need to educate the public about the Earth Energy Imbalance and how you can solve this. Then carbon becomes one of the pathways but so is regreening, cloud production, albedo and so on. It also feels better, because the imbalance is ballpark 1%, which shrinks the size of the problem and does not overwhelm,

Rob de Laet 

Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance

Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance

Co-founder of Senang Eco Services

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c13448ad-af2e-4137-9498-f046663be469%40gmail.com

.

[Jeff Suchon]

Now, is there an ideal ice area between all 3 poles and glaciers? I mean as something to measure for progress or when to let up on SRM? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8575483e-5aec-4ebd-9e56-0cd067a55123%40gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

The real goal is a survivable temperature, and a goal that is framed only in terms of CO2 (or CO2 equivalents) aims at only one of the factors that controls temperature, so is the wrong target to aim at, as opposed to the NET effect of ALL factors affecting temperature.

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 6:56 PM
To: robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>, carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] 280 or 350

A ppm target is good because people will know and feel comfortable that even though the temp drops with MCB or SAI they won't fear a rapid heat rebound if those methods get interrupted, eg, war. I think a ppm target is necessary for acceptability.

 

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 6:42 PM <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Herb

A temperature target probably makes more sense than a ppm target.  Certainly more relatable for most people.  Moreover ppm is only an intermediate target because it really is the temperature that we need to reduce, so a temperature target also allows policy to encompass SRM.  I realise that SRM also affects ppm but that's a level of detail that is strictly for the climate nerds.

Regards

Robert

 

On 13/02/2024 19:20, H simmens wrote:

Hi Robert,

 

The target that HPAC set in its Oct22 paper 

 

  

HPAC Vision document FINAL (10.22.22).pdf drive.google.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKHEY4dkJMNorDmsaRR%2B%3DXeNa08aVVHztmAacUS638xPiGDsfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shannon A. Fiume]

Jeff,

Yeah about that bronze, no one does publicly. Yet, we are making progress on funding clean tech, RE, and CDR. Right, it's no where near enough to assure not overshooting, but at least its forward progress. https://rmi.org/insight/the-great-reallocation/, https://rmi.org/insight/the-applied-innovation-roadmap-for-cdr/ (Note there is hardly any  funding and research for albedo management:SRM, SAI, which I image will get more eyes if we shrink the carbon budget too quickly.)

I'm hoping policy wonks are trying for exceptionally awesome carrots first given how broadly unpopular climate/carbon taxes are.

But really, now is the time to voice the large bets to at least inform people what they ought to forecast should humanity actually want to inflict the least amount of irreversible climate damages. ( See related, but not specific to CDR/kinda Off Topic: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/anthropocene-reversal-sustainable-development-case-increasing-fiume and concerning CDR https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/anthropocene-reversal-2100-part-ii-getting-from-15%25C2%25BAc-nearly-fiume/ -- Robert, this is where at least doing the first steps on an initial study into lower order pathways becomes more than wasted intellectual energy. And also yes Robert, running these experiments gave me the insight that given the present state of the CMIP class models, it's better to get on with building RE/Clean Tech/fossil-fuel-free CDR than waiting for the next class of models to model with lower the uncertainty newer lower targets.)

The reason why I wanted lower than 350ppm and even 300 ppm is that by the time we hit 350 ppm (about 1986-87) we had already experienced a super El Niño in the winter of 1982 through 1983 before hitting 350ppm. 300 ppm last occurred during the first expansion of the automobile powered by ICE in 1913.

To reset back to preindustrial, that would be at best 277-280ppm, and 0ºC of warming.

The quickest path to the lower (or lowest) target would ensure the least amount of irreversible climate damages, such as sea level rise and species extinction.

Best,

~~sa

-- 
Shannon A. Fiume
sha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020

[Jeff Suchon]

Very helpful Shannon.

Scary thought is this second and the next breaches some tipping point we weren't aware of because we've lived in such heated times and don't know enough yet what's next. 

[Shannon A. Fiume]

Hi Robert,

Thanks. Yes, even among consensus there's a range of targets built on models with differing specificity.

Just to clarify I don't think society will collapse abruptly in the near future no matter what we do. I do think that we will have a radically more painful existence, and take on horrible climate damages including irreversible ones should we not peruse the fastest path to net zero followed by the fastest path to scaled fossil fuel free CDR now till we remove all Anthropogenic emissions, or reach 0ºC of warming by century's end.

Yes, this is my speculation based on a bunch of numbers thrown around in a simple climate model (used for the older IPCC ARs but w/ different initialization) with high uncertainty, and reading the ARs. The big actionable takeaways for the CDR group is be flexible on scaling fossil-fuel free CDR possibly much sooner than mid century to capitalize on minimizing irreversible climate damage. The other takeaway is off topic and for the clean tech sector to seek net zero asap, also to capitalize on minimizing irreversible climate damage.

Best,

~~sa

[Shannon A. Fiume]

Tom, 

Yes, a temperature target forces one to also factor all other GHGs and albedo conditions that effect total radiative forcing.

~~sa

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB49945000F32BB8642413A141DD4E2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

-- 
Shannon A. Fiume
sha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020

[Dan Miller]

A few high-level points:

1. James Hansen et al, in their “Global Warming in the Pipeline” paper point out that warming from GHG is much higher than the IPCC assumes (ECS is 4.8ºC vs. 3ºC) and cooling from aerosols is much more than the IPCC assumes. The reduction of cooling aerosols from shipping regulations has led to a rapid acceleration of warming and gave us 1.5ºC last year and we are on track for 2ºC in the 2030s.

2. Hansen points out that we must purposefully reduce the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) (i.e., do SRM) in order stay under 2ºC and maintain a safe climate for our children. Emissions reduction alone will not keep us safe (and we’re not reducing emissions now in any case).

3. In the scenario that we keep climate forcing at its current level (we won’t) the long term temperature is on track for 10ºC (or 8ºC if we keep the current level of aerosols). While we can reduce the climate forcing, we are on track to increase it to prior mass extinction levels by the end of the century.

4. We have only experienced a fraction of the warming that will be caused the the GHGs we have already emitted. While we have increased CO2 by 50%, when other GHGs are included we are at 2XCO2e now and we have experienced 1.5ºC of warming vs. 4.8ºC ECS, though aerosols are hiding 0.5~1.5ºC of warming (my estimate). And ECS is only the "short-term” feedbacks! On the other hand, if we eliminate emissions, continued ocean uptake of CO2 will offset (some of) the warming in the pipeline and temps may stabilize, with warming from aerosol elimination (offset by short-term GHG elimination and, perhaps, SRM) being a wild card.

5. For these reasons and others, I agree that we should set temperature targets rather than CO2 ppm targets. I suggest 0ºC as the temperature target.

Dan

 Jeff and Robert,

 

I disagree. 

 

To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/f917529c-ed5f-45c3-ac9f-9004e8e73f1fn%40googlegroups.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 toCarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/942917260.757980.1707847309616%40email.ionos.co.uk.

-- 
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/b506ee7d-53d3-4971-b076-5aa7e5fb22b9%40autofracture.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Nice useful summary, thanks Dan.

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/5E48B04F-EE53-4930-B90C-019745228323%40rodagroup.com.

[Eelco Rohling]

One comment, though, on “warming from GHG is much higher than the IPCC assumes”.

IPCC assumes nothing. The climate sensitivity they “use” is an emergent property in the modern models, not something that is “put in” based on an assumption. 

I more likely is low because the emergent value is determined by the processes represented in the models. Hardly any of the high-resolution models has a fully dynamic ice sheet representation because this would require modelling over very fine (turbulence under ice shelves, or even finer) to very large (ocean circulation) scales, and over very long timescales (multi-centennial to millennial). Also, there are many unknowns, such as those surrounding permafrost behaviour and vegetation/soil feedbacks that are not fully resolved as processes, but often represented with some sort of parameterisation. 

Paleoclimate data, such as Jim uses (and I do), give a picture of full climate-system response in which all processes (whatever they may be) have more or less equilibrated with the slow natural forcings. Hence, the paleo climate data portray the full sensitivity. But timescale choices need to be made, because when you go sufficiently long, then the negative rock-weathering and sedimentation feedbacks come in, which make the responses smaller again over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Also, paleo climate data are often based on proxies, with considerable uncertainties. So comparing equilibrium responses from paleo climate studies with those from models (typically determined over only 150-200 years following a perturbation) is non-trivial, and cannot be summarised in a poorly nuanced statement as “warming from GHG is much higher than the IPCC assumes”. One would need to mention timescales to start with. And also uncertainty envelopes. 

Now I am fully on board with Jim’s statement that true equilibrium warming will be much greater than models imply, but that’s only to be expected: the high-res models look at the responses from an incompletely represented system over only 150-200 years. The paleoclimate data looks at timescales of thousands of years or more. Corrections for some of the slow feedbacks can “approximate” the model-type climate sensitivity, but only to some extent. Key is, however, what we call “equilibrium”. And that’s where some of the considerably higher paleo-estimates come from. Equilibrium is further away than in the “equilibrium” estimates from models, which essentially wait only until the surface 500 or so meters of the ocean have reached thermal equilibrium.

Please see http://www.highstand.org/erohling/Rohling-papers/2018-Re-ea_annurev-marine-121916-063242.pdf for a perspective based on theoretical arguments (not designed to give real-world values; only designed to show where different estimates come from).

Cheers

Eelco

===

Prof. Eelco J. Rohling
(Ocean & Climate Change)
- 2012 Australian Laureate Fellow
- Editor in Chief, Oxford Open Climate Change
Research School of Earth Sciences
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia

Mobile: (+61) 434 667441
Tel. Office: (+61) 2 612 53857
e-mail: eelco....@anu.edu.au

personal WebURL: http://www.highstand.org/erohling/ejrhome.htm

secondary email: eelco_...@me.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/05b701da5f28%245f1a2350%241d4e69f0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Thanks Eelco for those truly helpful comments.  There is more in what I found to be a really informative couple of postings from Stefan Rahmstorf.  This one is his commentary on the recent van Westen AMOC paper that provides a non-technical explanation of the methodology, the results and their significance.  This one is from last year and provides more useful information about the state of AMOC. (You'll probably have to register with Policy Commons to read them - it's free.)

For those with strong feelings about the importance of targets for various climate variables, these contributions from  acknowledged experts in the field, show the extent to which critical Earth systems remain poorly understood.  Any targets set in a domain riddled with such uncertainty are bound to be subject to continuous revision as our knowledge grows.  If, as is too often the case, policymakers are allowed to argue that when we know more, then we can set the targets and then we can devise the appropriate policies to deliver those targets, it is blindingly obvious that things are going to go seriously awry.  We know enough, already!

All we need to know is that GSAT is rising and it would be prudent to be bring it back to close to pre-industrial level.  We can only do that by intervention in the carbon cycle and/or increasing planetary albedo.  We knew all that 40 years and more ago but chose to do next to nothing about it.  Now we have a looming crisis.  The necessary action has become more urgent and simultaneously more draconian - if you leave a problem to fester, it either goes away of its own accord, or it gets exponentially worse.  Climate change is very much of the latter sort.

There might even be a good case in 2024 to stop all climate research that is not directly connected to a proposed intervention in the carbon cycle or to enhancing albedo, that is thought to be climatically scalable at speed.  More engineers and materials scientists need to be working on trials and pilots to get these interventions into the development phase.  Cut out all the interesting nice to know stuff and just concentrate on the practical business of stopping digging the global warming any hole deeper.  Is that too radical?  Don't get excited, it won't happen because too many academics have a vested interest in keeping the flow of funds into their pet research projects.  The value of most of that research in terms of slowing and reversing global warming is close to zero.  They're not bad actors, it's just that the whole system is in failure mode.  Imagine you were an intelligent alien watching us as we flail about trying to sort out climate change.  They all be looking at each in amazement and saying in their own inimitable alien-speak - WTF are these creatures doing!

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2C73E56B-170C-4A30-8E8A-B1A63AA0AA54%40anu.edu.au.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Shannon

I just want to pick up on one comment - 'I don't think society will collapse abruptly in the near future no matter what we do'.

How confident are you that there won't be an abrupt societal collapse?  You might not think it will, but do you think it might?  And if so, with what probability?

The importance of these questions is that while the future is unpredictable because not every conceivable future is possible, it isn't necessary (or feasible) to have a policy for all possible eventualities. But some possible futures are more probable than others.  A robust policy regime will provide an acceptable outcome in the widest range of plausible futures.  Plausibility is the key.

When you say that you don't think that societal collapse will happen, are you saying that it's so unlikely that we don't need to bother to cover that contingency?  Or are you saying that you think it's unlikely but no so unlikely that if it happened you'd be really surprised?

My reckoning based on what I've learned about climate change over the last 20 years, human behaviour over a very long time and the dynamics of complex adaptive systems as part of my PhD research, is that societal collapse is the most likely outcome.  While, I cannot be certain that it will happen, I regard it as more than merely plausible.  However, just being plausible is a sufficient condition to expect policymakers to do whatever is necessary to avert it from happening.  Policy should be focused on the worst plausible future not the one currently thought to be most likely.

Regards

Robert

[H simmens]

Robert,

Your suggestion that most all research should be focused on climate intervention requires that the nations of the world recognize that the climate crisis is an existential security risk that requires war like mobilization. 

That’s why a declaration of a true climate emergency by Biden (along with similar declarations simultaneously issued by other nations) with appropriate federal follow up properly explained to the public could begin to shift the discourse to emergency speed and scale action. 

Currently there is no direct link between climate research, development, deployment and evaluation. 

In my book I proposed borrowing the concept of translational medical research from bench to bedside to create Centers of Translational Mitigation - CTM’s- to help accomplish what you advocate. 

The centers would work under the direction of federal agencies with the mission to achieve the explicit climate goals set out in the presidential climate emergency declaration. 

(The UK ARIA agency and the US NSF are perhaps the closest such entities to a CTM but are nowhere near what is required.)

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 14, 2024, at 9:55 AM, robert...@gmail.com wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8e7a9080-7f5f-4990-ac86-4a83fe7992fc%40gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Shannon, et al.,

I agree with you to a large degree, we need to deal with the already baked in hurt locker now happening as well as deal with the ongoing emissions that creates it.

The big actionable takeaway from CDR, IMHO, is that tipping points have now been tripped, radical climate and socioeconomic changes are now happening which have no plausible... single... CDR/SRM/GE technical 'off switch' available in the near future. Yet, planetary scale C cycle management is now vaguely imaginable via the coupling of many different CDR technologies and policies.

Building a future that couples survival tech for the masses, or supreamly efficient Water/Energy/Nutrient Nexus technologies, with multiple strong CDR measures that can mutually support WENN efforts, is likely now required for survival. A WENN CDR standard is a survivalist standard, try doing without any of the components.

Best regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/aa3c1f52-1b72-4148-ba22-b45256e85f0a%40autofracture.com.

[Jeff Suchon]

That brings up a good point, I don't think too off subject, evaporating potable and ag water as the heat goes on.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1ebpqvQK42unR3aOyzEDUKjjFHwwEOR-8XWq5SjwWsUfA%40mail.gmail.com.