CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
Geoengineering News
Authors
Experimental test of the theory proposed in an Alternative Method to Determine a Carbon Dioxide Removal Target. The multi-step experiment explores halting anthropogenic emissions from greenhouse gases and removing all historic cumulative anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in less than a hundred years to match the preindustrial temperature. The multi-step experiment was conducted on MAGICC 6.8, a reduced complexity model or model emulator, managed by pymagicc. The experiment compares the new experimental pathway 300x2050, marker SSP1 2.6, and SSP1 1.9 within the context of development under a green growth paradigm and explores large-scale linear carbon dioxide removal over the 80-year time frame. The multi-step experiment calibrated the experimental pathway to include recent historic emissions through 2020, and was subsequently tuned to model the recent average global temperatures and CO₂ concentration through 2020. Contrary to the prior proposed theory all anthropogenic emissions (from both fossil fuels and land-use change) needed to be removed to realize the final temperature of nearly 0ºC. The experimental pathway evolved temperature to 0.07ºC relative to the 1720-1800 mean and 0.14ºC to the 1850-1900 mean and realized a final CO₂ concentration of 278.82 ppm by 2550. The evolved climate at 2550 was achieved by phasing out all greenhouse gases, excluding ammonia, and removing all cumulative anthropogenic carbon dioxide ending by 2100.
Source: Earth RXiv
Tom Goreau
Shannon, thanks for this great simulation (below) showing that climate stabilization at safe levels without dangerous overshoot is fundamentally impossible with continued fossil fuel use!
It’s interesting to see how the greatest volcanic explosions over the last 200 years, such as Gunung Tambora, Gunung Krakatau, and Gunung Agung had such strong but ephemeral albedo effects on global climate, showing clearly that stratospheric aerosol cooling must be applied continuously, forever, to have the impacts desired, with all the consequences of acid rain they will cause to soil and ocean (if sulfates are used). On the other hand sustained Arctic ice recovery could have a permanent albedo effect without permanently damaging life on land and sea.
On the other hand, those proposing direct cooling modifications by changing albedos neglect the very large local cooling caused by regenerating evapotranspiration cycles of intact forests. 40 years ago we found that loss of evapotranspiration by Amazonian clearcutting resulted in up to 10-14 C daily warming of soil and air in the day as opposed to around 2-6 C in intact jungle (T. J. Goreau & W. Z. de Mello, 1985, Effects of deforestation on sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane from Central Amazonian soils and biota during the dry season: a preliminary study, PROC. WORKSHOP ON BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS: PROBLEMS FOR RESEARCH, D. Athie, T. E. Lovejoy, & P. de M. Oyens (Eds.), Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura & World Wildlife Fund, Piricicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil, p. 51-66). Local cooling on large scales by reforestation can result in permanent cooling of several degrees by increased evapotranspiration of heat from soil to atmosphere, while greatly increasing biomass and soil carbon!
Capoeira is clearcut primary Amazonian forest next to intact control sites.
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
gor...@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
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
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
--
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/CAHJsh99CaLywJvi59CYKwHUrA1o9xFoHiJ_vW2aaJ4hjr7u1-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Hayes
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/3FEE4998-25D3-48F9-ADD9-49E04306952C%40globalcoral.org.
Robert Chris
Tom
Unless I'm mistaken, this simulation does not include any albedo enhancement and assumes that all the work is being done in the management of LWR. If that's so, it doesn't really help us that much because the task of reaching net zero by the mid-2020s, as contemplated here, is demonstrably unrealistic, whether we continue to use fossil fuels or not.
Am I missing something?
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/3FEE4998-25D3-48F9-ADD9-49E04306952C%40globalcoral.org.
Tom Goreau
Shannon can clarify on the assumed boundary conditions, but the simulation shows a century of misery in any scenario without albedo enhancement or direct temperature modification by increased Evapotranspiration (ET) or Ocean Thermodynamic Geoengineering (TG).
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Tom,
Shannon did not model a scenario with continued emissions, so it cannot be said that both removal and emissions cessation are required, as you suggest, "that climate stabilization at safe levels without dangerous overshoot is fundamentally impossible with continued fossil fuel use."
"Abstract
Experimental test of the theory proposed in an Alternative
Method to Determine a Carbon Dioxide Removal Target. The
multi-step experiment explores halting anthropogenic emissions
from greenhouse gases and removing all historic cumulative
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in less than a hundred
years to match the preindustrial temperature. ..."
Where the abstract states, "Contrary to the prior proposed theory all anthropogenic
emissions (from both fossil fuels and land-use change) needed to
be removed to realize the final temperature of nearly 0ºC," is
unclear to me, because a continued emissions scenario was not
modeled. Fundamentally, to compensate for continued emissions
in a continued emissions scenario, simply devise the scenario to
remove a compensating amount of GHGs.
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5300/
Steep trails,
B
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/222AE937-FA14-4939-986B-7BB6D9339537%40globalcoral.org.
Tom Goreau
Shannon can clarify, but if she found that without continued emissions there was still no CDR pathway towards stability at safe levels that avoided overshoot, then stronger measures are needed than CDR alone?
Shannon A. Fiume
Hi Bruce, Tom et al.,
Multiple emissions scenarios were modeled: two reference scenarios, SSP 1 1.9, SSP 1 2.6 (green growth SSP 1, RF 1.9, RF 2.6) with the experimental emissions scenario of both positive and negative emissions named 300 x 2050, aka RF 0.
The only way to achieve a cooler climate than the present is with
large amounts of negative emissions. The math only works if we
pass zero emissions and goes deeply negative, assuming we do this
before we reach the tipping points (the model limitation is it
doesn't reflect all tipping points). To reach zero emissions we
must phase out fossil fuels, immediately.
The explicit statement, contrary to the previous theory paper, Alternative Method to determine a CDR Target https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10503117.1, I found in this experiment that all anthropogenic emissions had to be removed, from all sinks, land, ocean, and atmosphere. My prior paper was that we only had to remove the anthropogenic from the atmospheric and ocean sinks.
Tom is entirely correct, what I could have written is exactly what Tom pointed out, "that climate stabilization at safe levels without dangerous overshoot is fundamentally impossible with continued fossil fuel use."
Best,
~~sa
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/c60fe37f-2b3a-3ec7-7cb5-eef8d9c8d51a%40earthlink.net.
-- Shannon A. Fiume sha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020 http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbon https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!
Shannon A. Fiume
Tom et al.,
The preferred most impactful measure to allow scaled CDR to be most impactful, is getting to zero emissions. In the context of seeking a cooler climate than the present, (or some day in the future deciding to seek a cooler climate), for CDR to be effective, we must get to zero emissions largely by emissions reductions.
The present volume of yearly emissions and the historic burden of
anthropogenic carbon is too large to not devote maximal effort to
emissions reductions. If we want to hold the door open to do
climate restoration post zero emissions, we need to have reduced
emissions as fast as possible to avoid tipping points and any
unknown unintended consequences causing warming. Caveat is this
type of experiment needs to be repeated on an ensemble of ESMs (as
MAGICC doesn't emulate tipping points nor newer climate dynamics:
ice loss, permafrost, etc.)
Was that not clear in the paper?
I have one more edit to go before I publish, as right now its a
nonpeer reviewed paper on Eartharxiv. (I'll end up doing minor
tightening of the abstract, additional context of nonco2 ghg
phaseouts, repackage conclusion to include need for immediate FF
phaseout that are currently buried within the text for nonclimate
sci readers.)
Thanks!
~~sa
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/A08072B4-6ECC-45EB-9261-10924A275BEB%40globalcoral.org.
Shannon A. Fiume
Tom,
Would need to verify safety and efficacy of albedo cooling, (what's the most efficient way to cool, etc.) However, any NbS we have we should deploy (all of) those. No they won't have the volume effect to help us stop warming, or counter fossil, but they will help us preserve local systems, while having a tiny lowering effect to yearly emissions.
Let's keep the other email to a tech discussion on boundary.
Thx,
~~sa
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/222AE937-FA14-4939-986B-7BB6D9339537%40globalcoral.org.
Michael Hayes
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/978ba99a-be09-7f67-9879-38b504cc5c3a%40autofracture.com.
David Hawkins
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 5:42:51 PM
To: Shannon A. Fiume <sha...@autofracture.com>
Cc: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Shannon,
You say, "we must get to zero emissions largely by emissions
reductions." Why not all CDR (negative emissions) instead of
cessation? My point is your scenarios do not include a
continuation of future emissions with CDR greater than what you
have already in your scenarios so that the final outcome is the
same ppm restoration.
Negative emissions is also confusing to many and really I wish we
would use other terms. The negative emissions concept has too many
moving parts that have counter-meanings: First we must reduce
emissions, or create CDR to compensate for emissions cessation of
hard to decarbonize sectors. Then after enough cessation and
compensating we achieve net zero, then and only then can we go
negative with emissions. A no emissions cessation scenario can
restore to exactly the same ppm GHG as one with emissions
cessation and or compensating credits, by removing more from the
sky instead of cessation and or compensation of future emissions.
Your statement is valid for the scenarios you looked at, but not
for a continued emissions scenario that you did not look at.
And we get bonus points for this continued emissions scenario too
because cessation is distinctly different, novel, and as history
shows, much more difficult than CDR with mature industrial
strategies. Plus further bonus points, we only have to remove half
of what is emitted because half of emissions are absorbed by Earth
system. Their re-emissions mostly do not start until we reach
biosphere/atmosphere equilibrium, then they are slow and a
substantial portion are permanently sequestered and or long-term
storage. Because time is of the essence, by the time re-emissions
get rolling well, we will have a huge CDR infrastructure that
doesn't have a lot remaining to do in the sky because most excess
GHGs will already be removed.
When you say, "The present volume of yearly emissions and the historic burden of anthropogenic carbon is too large to not devote maximal effort to emissions reductions," this is your opinion. It follows along exactly with all of the evaluated IPCC scenarios with AR6, but still it is not fact because it is arbitrary. And the burden in the sky -linear math for a 20 year restoration scenario, is twice the amount of emissions reductions to reach net zero. Costs too are poorly represented in findings because renewable energy is now a third the cost of fossil energy assumptions, and because Socolow 2011 and House 2011 assumed enthalpy backwards and used other poor process assumptions (Realff and Eisenberger 2012, Van Norden 2011, and Holmes and Keith 2012). These citations are still in use today despite the rebuttals.
Fundamentally though, all the biases in CDR aside, a continued
emissions scenario can achieve the same restoration, but CDR must
be greater.
Steep trails,
B
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
David Hawkins
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 9:37:20 PM
To: Shannon A. Fiume <sha...@autofracture.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Shannon A. Fiume
Bruce,
To model CDR in MAGICC, one takes the net decrease in carbon and
applies that to the net year to year change for a given emissions
scenario. There isn't a graph outlining gross emissions say that
from a continued emissions, and CDR was some quantity x, the model
only accepts net decreases. So for a continued emissions scenario,
it would fall between my scenario - 300x 2050 and RF 1.9 or RF 2.6
assuming we wanted to avoid as much overshoot as possible. And it
would have to be offset by what ever amount of emissions was
allowed to "continue".
When I say we have to get to zero emissions, it's because the volume of carbon is so large and other solutions don't reach the scale even if combined, to get us to zero emissions singularly.
When you say, "The present volume of yearly emissions and the historic burden of anthropogenic carbon is too large to not devote maximal effort to emissions reductions," this is your opinion.
No, the math looks really close to being incredible dangerous to not working out if we don't have a way that doesn't introduce more emissions to lower our year to year emissions. But sure, I'm not a degreed climate scientist, so you'll have to get this in print in the peer review or from a degree holder.
~~sa
Shannon A. Fiume
Bruce, Robert, Michael and everyone,
It's the volume of carbon we need to deal with to get the climate
to stop getting worse (meaning reach net-zero), and then get
cooler than today (go net-negative from zero emissions.) We don't
have the volume without reaching nearly all of net-zero by
emissions reductions.
Just speculating, if we were to double Earth's plant productivity in the land and ocean, and do all upwards speculation of EW, biochar, basically all NbS, we could hit close to a 1/3 of yearly emissions (https://bit.ly/nco2bal). But then what? We still need emissions reductions, even if we have a bit more time with a safe SAI. And that only slows us down from making it worse faster. It doesn't stop global warming.
I want to see Climate Restoration (requires doing everything.) But even to just holding to stop before overshoot, we need emissions reductions as we can't scale even all NBS in 2-7 years to reduce emissions by 1/3. Worse news is the carbon budget has shrunk anywhere from just under 3 yrs to 7 yrs. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00406-z
We have to be very precise about explaining the need for immediate emissions reductions to get us largely to zero emissions and scaled climate just CDR to push us largely negative, and SAI to hold temps below overshoot.
We'll need to do as much emissions reductions, phasedown to
phaseouts of fossil, and all safe methods CDR and others, over the
time-frame to get us to net, and then zero emissions then negative
as fast as possible in order to do the least damage. That
translates to achieve net-zero as fast as possible first,
deploying emissions reductions technology is first priority,
R&D on scaled climate just CDR and SAI.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor funds to extend this paper to review how to build a portfolio of negative emissions, this paper will remain agnostic on how to obtain negative carbon emissions. (If anyone has new Pg C removed quantities for CDR, pls add them as a comment to https://bit.ly/nco2bal in the 2035 tab, and also note the reference, a doi preferably.)
Regards,
~~sa
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/PH8PR10MB65498BB98DB18310AD17714AA76E9%40PH8PR10MB6549.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.