OIF and Mt. Pinatubo 1991

[Peter Fiekowsky]

All-

Looking at the Keeling (CO2) curve before and after the massive Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, we can see what appears to be 4ppm reduction in CO2 levels, equivalent to about 2 years of emissions. Who has published this before?

The assumption is that the millions of tons of volcanic dust provided nutrients that produced more phytoplankton in the ocean. There was more than just iron added, but the reduction seems permanent over the intervening 30 years.

It makes a compelling argument that OIF works and is quite permanent.

The blue lines are fitted to 1983 to 1991, and 1995 to 2012.

Any comments?

Peter

--

Peter Fiekowsky

Author- Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race

Foundation for Climate Restoration Founder and Chairman Emeritus

Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity.

PeterFiekowsky.com  Climate restoration 2021 

(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California

[Greg Rau]

I’d like to see a higher resolution chronology of pCO2 vs Pinatubo. The figure suggests a pCO2 signal that predates Pinatubo. Also, what did global T do and how might that affect biotic and abiotic CDR?

Greg

--
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/CAEr4H2mCJu1S4BY3FaESjxbejGjaotPWsRnjPCz4Ue1sYQuR7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Greg H. Rau, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Marine Sciences
Univer. California, Santa Cruz
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau
Co-founder and manager, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Google group
Co-founder and CTO, Planetary Technologies, Inc.
510 582 5578

510 363 1519 c

[Kevin Lister]

It's very compelling and it offers a potential of removing CO2 without significantly worsening the energy supply problems on the future. 

The big unanswered questions are: 

1.  If looked at over a longer period of time would the CO2 return back to the atmosphere?

2. Can it be sustained year after year and are there limits to the rate of removal that we don't have quantitive data on?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CAEr4H2mCJu1S4BY3FaESjxbejGjaotPWsRnjPCz4Ue1sYQuR7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Peter J-

Yes, the scientific community has come up with remarkable explanations in order to avoid getting associated with John Martin's iron hypothesis. Here are the two I've heard over the years:

1. The 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, with 3% of the global population, led to a reduction of manufacturing, which somehow led to a reduction of 2 years of global emissions.

2. The haze from the volcano lasted almost a year, and the reduction in direct sunshine and increase in indirect light led to an increase in plant growth, and thus CO2 uptake by plants on land. Somehow those increased leaves and fruits didn't rot the following winter when they fell.

Have you heard other explanations?

Quantifying the graph data:

We can calculate that the 1991 volcano led to net removal of 32 Gt CO2 (4 ppm CO2 times 8 Gt CO2/ppm CO2). This shifted the Keeling curve out by 2.5 years (worth of emissions, which were 23 Gt CO2/year in 1990). That 50 Gt of cancelled out emissions might be caused by 50 Mt of iron. The volcano produced 10 Gt of material. If 0.5% of that was iron that landed in the ocean, the numbers work.

Peter, I'm just reporting the easily verified data (mainly CO2 Keeling curve). I'm not recommending how you interpret it. You can follow the scientists who say that 3% of the world's population caused a 2 year hiatus in global net emissions, or you can follow Prof. John Martin, who calculated that iron triggering phytoplankton makes mathematical sense, and is consistent with the last ten ice ages. Readers should decide for themselves.

You are right that many scientists still say that just because the Haida project in the Gulf of Alaska preceded the largest Alaska salmon harvest on record, and that the resulting algae (salmon food) blooms were very visible in satellite images, does not mean that feeding the salmon led to the 4 fold increase in the catch. It could have just been a random thing, not the idea that feeding fish causes them to grow and survive.

Data is data, and belief is belief. Even scientists need to believe.

I updated the graph slightly to show the 2.5 years of emission removal (green line):

Peter

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:26 AM peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does this paper, which also addresses the role of Pinatubo, impact your ideas Peter?  Doing some review of the literature may suggest alternative explanations to OIF. 

- Peter Jenkins

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019AV000149 

External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink

,,,,

First published: 03 June 2020

 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000149

Citations: 20

Peer Review: The peer review history for this article is available as a PDF in the Supporting Information.

PDF

 

Abstract

The ocean has absorbed the equivalent of 39% of industrial-age fossil carbon emissions, significantly modulating the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 and its associated impacts on climate. Despite the importance of the ocean carbon sink to climate, our understanding of the causes of its interannual-to-decadal variability remains limited. This hinders our ability to attribute its past behavior and project its future. A key period of interest is the 1990s, when the ocean carbon sink did not grow as expected. Previous explanations of this behavior have focused on variability internal to the ocean or associated with coupled atmosphere/ocean modes. Here, we use an idealized upper ocean box model to illustrate that two external forcings are sufficient to explain the pattern and magnitude of sink variability since the mid-1980s. First, the global-scale reduction in the decadal-average ocean carbon sink in the 1990s is attributable to the slowed growth rate of atmospheric pCO2. The acceleration of atmospheric pCO2 growth after 2001 drove recovery of the sink. Second, the global sea surface temperature response to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo explains the timing of the global sink within the 1990s. These results are consistent with previous experiments using ocean hindcast models with variable atmospheric pCO2 and with and without climate variability. The fact that variability in the growth rate of atmospheric pCO2 directly imprints on the ocean sink implies that there will be an immediate reduction in ocean carbon uptake as atmospheric pCO2 responds to cuts in anthropogenic emissions.

Plain Language Summary

Humans have added 440 Pg of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere since 1750, driving up the atmospheric CO2 concentration. But not all of this carbon remains in the atmosphere. The ocean has absorbed 39%, substantially mitigating anthropogenic climate change. Though this “ocean carbon sink” is a critical climate process, our understanding of its mechanisms remains limited. Of great interest is the unexplained slow-down of the ocean carbon sink in the 1990s and a subsequent recovery. In this work, we use a simple globally-averaged model to show that two processes external to the ocean are sufficient to explain the slowing of the ocean carbon sink in the 1990s. First, a reduced rate of accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere after 1989 reduced the atmosphere–ocean gradient that drives the ocean sink. Second, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo led to changes in ocean temperature that modified the timing of the sink from 1991 to 2001. We illustrate that the most important control on the decade-averaged magnitude of the ocean sink is variability in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2. This implies that as future fossil fuel emission cuts drive reduced growth of atmospheric CO2, the ocean sink will immediately slow down.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CAEr4H2mCJu1S4BY3FaESjxbejGjaotPWsRnjPCz4Ue1sYQuR7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Wil Burns]

It would be helpful to read the NASEM ocean CDR study chapter on ocean fertilization, which includes some good analysis about why natural releases of iron may not be analogous to OIF. It also suggests why we should take the link between the Haida intervention and fish production with a grain of salt.

 

The study also suggests that nutrient robbing could eliminate all of the benefits of OIF, as well as engender international tensions. Finally, the study outlines a number of other risks of this approach that need to be seriously considered before one would fulsomely endorse ocean fertilization.

 

wil

 

WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University   Email: william...@northwestern.edu   Mobile: 312.550.3079   1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html   Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:  60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min 30-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call 15-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call   I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today.

--
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/CAEr4H2nMUCKMJXQBkNSjEhpX5ek4ED1yR7Rc1_TvnuTWgnnLWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Have you heard other explanations?

 

Yes, I recall claims that the 1991 El Niño dropped exceptional amounts of rain in South America, the deserts of Peru bloomed, but it was wet in the Amazonia too, and so there was unusually high tropical biomass drawdown, much of which was respired or oxidized in the drier years that followed.

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:02 AM
To: peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com>
Cc: Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] OIF and Mt. Pinatubo 1991

--
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/CAEr4H2nMUCKMJXQBkNSjEhpX5ek4ED1yR7Rc1_TvnuTWgnnLWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Wil-

Thank you for the alternate view. If I understand you (and NASEM) correctly, the claim is that we (probably) cannot engineer ocean iron CDR that is as effective as nature does randomly before ice ages (removing 130 ppm CO2), and in events like Mt. Pinatubo (removing 4 ppm CO2). Is that the point you're making? If not, what conclusion are you proposing?

Did NASEM recommend a better pathway to pursue instead? If so, which pathway? And has it been demonstrated (not proven, but demonstrated) at scale as OIF has?

Peter

[Wil Burns]

Peter,

 

1. Yes, in terms of analogy to natural seeding, but nutrient robbing is also a serious question. You might also check out, Browning, et al., here: Frontiers | Volcanic ash supply to the surface ocean—remote sensing of biological responses and their wider biogeochemical significance | Marine Science (frontiersin.org)

 

 

Transient micronutrient enrichment of the surface ocean can enhance phytoplankton growth rates and alter microbial community structure with an ensuing spectrum of biogeochemical feedbacks. Strong phytoplankton responses to micronutrients supplied by volcanic ash have been reported recently. Here we: (i) synthesize findings from these recent studies; (ii) report the results of a new remote sensing study of ash fertilization; and (iii) calculate theoretical bounds of ash-fertilized carbon export. Our synthesis highlights that phytoplankton responses to ash do not always simply mimic that of iron amendment; the exact mechanisms for this are likely biogeochemically important but are not yet well understood. Inherent optical properties of ash-loaded seawater suggest rhyolitic ash biases routine satellite chlorophyll-a estimation upwards by more than an order of magnitude for waters with <0.1 mg chlorophyll-a m⁻³, and less than a factor of 2 for systems with >0.5 mg chlorophyll-a m⁻³. For this reason post-ash-deposition chlorophyll-a changes in oligotrophic waters detected via standard Case 1 (open ocean) algorithms should be interpreted with caution. Remote sensing analysis of historic events with a bias less than a factor of 2 provided limited stand-alone evidence for ash-fertilization. Confounding factors were poor coverage, incoherent ash dispersal, and ambiguity ascribing biomass changes to ash supply over other potential drivers. Using current estimates of iron release and carbon export efficiencies, uncertainty bounds of ash-fertilized carbon export for three events are presented. Patagonian iron supply to the Southern Ocean from volcanic eruptions is less than that of windblown dust on 1000 year timescales but can dominate supply at shorter timescales. Reducing uncertainties in remote sensing of phytoplankton response and nutrient release from ash are avenues for enabling assessment of the oceanic response to large-scale transient nutrient enrichment.

 

2. NASEM suggests a research program with great granularity; you can read it yourself in the nutrient fertilization chapter;
3. The risks of OIF were starkly outlined the report; that also needs to be taken into consideration in terms of potential advocacy of this approach.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Peter-

Indeed, correlation does not prove causation. The fact that there were large plankton blooms in salmon feeding grounds the summer before a record salmon harvest does not prove that feeding the salmon caused the record catch.

The lack of peer reviewed articles about that could indicate that, following the vicious 2012 Guardian article which accused those involved doing illegal and immoral work, scientists were fearful of being associated with the iron hypothesis. This is conjecture and I cannot prove it. However preceding events do sometimes cause follow-on events.

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". Frequently a lack of evidence is evidence of fear.

These are good questions for these communities to consider. Thank you for bringing them up.

Peter

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:34 AM peter jenkins <jenkinsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the Haida OIF/salmon hypothesis, I recall there is zero published science and we've seen no supporting opinions from any recognized fisheries scientists supporting that hypothesis. Or can you point to some new info? The southeast AK salmon fishery is one of the most carefully studied fisheries in the world. Logic is not enough to offer conclusions on causation of annual run sizes. 

- Peter J

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Tom-

That's a new proposal for me. I know you're not defending it, but it evokes these questions:

1) Can we see similar El Nino events in the Keeling data starting in 1958?

2) How many Gt would be involved? Would it be around 50 Gt CO2?

3) Could those forests hold the carbon intact for 3 or 4 decades?

Peter

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Yes, nutrient robbing is a concern. I'm optimistic it can be dealt with while yielding a healthy ocean because:

1. OIF at scale is expected to be performed in eddies, where the chemical changes are constrained. About 1% of the ocean's surface would need to be restored, leaving 99% in its current state. Currents make it more complicated than that, of course, but that's the starting point.

2. Nature has done OIF for millions or billions of years, and has adapted to deal with the nutrient variations that happen when volcanoes and dust storms occur. This is to say that nutrient changes will happen, and they, "natural".

3. If serious damage is discovered downstream from an OIF eddy, then that fertilization would not be repeated. The down-current ecosystem will recover within months or a year--the OIF would only be done on a tiny fraction of the ocean.

Great point, and one that experts have been thinking about for decades.

Peter

[Tom Goreau]

There’s good indications from the satellite Infrared data of large scale greening events following exceptionally wet years in the tropics, which are large enough to make a couple year hiccup on the CO2 curve.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2kwk7zPkm%3D_pLojsFc2L6U-nLxeFtGPLm7QTdeBAvM4Ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

Loss of CO2 after Pinatubo may be due to SRM effects - cooling affects ocean dissolution and soil carbon respiration. 

Effects of solar radiation modification on the ocean carbon cycle: An earth system modeling study

Author links open overlay panelXiaoyuJinJingyuZhang

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aosl.2022.100187

Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons licenseOpen access

Abstract

Solar radiation modification (SRM, also termed as geoengineering) has been proposed as a potential option to counteract anthropogenic warming. The underlying idea of SRM is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the atmosphere and surface, thus offsetting some amount of global warming. Here, the authors use an Earth system model to investigate the impact of SRM on the global carbon cycle and ocean biogeochemistry. The authors simulate the temporal evolution of global climate and the carbon cycle from the pre-industrial period to the end of this century under three scenarios: the RCP4.5 CO2 emission pathway, the RCP8.5 CO2 emission pathway, and the RCP8.5 CO2 emission pathway with the implementation of SRM to maintain the global mean surface temperature at the level of RCP4.5. The simulations show that SRM, by altering global climate, also affects the global carbon cycle. Compared to the RCP8.5 simulation without SRM, by the year 2100, SRM reduces atmospheric CO2 by 65 ppm mainly as a result of increased CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere. However, SRM-induced change in atmospheric CO2 and climate has a small effect in mitigating ocean acidification. By the year 2100, relative to RCP8.5, SRM causes a decrease in surface ocean hydrogen ion concentration ([H+]) by 6% and attenuates the seasonal amplitude of [H+] by about 10%. The simulations also show that SRM has a small effect on globally integrated ocean net primary productivity relative to the high-CO2 simulation without SRM. This study contributes to a comprehensive assessment of the effects of SRM on both the physical climate and the global carbon cycle

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CY4PR1301MB198992890716CCD7E66691C3DDC09%40CY4PR1301MB1989.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Has anyone digested Jeng 2022 to understand why a reduction of atmospheric CO2 does not reduce ocean impacts?  Is it a bias of the model or experiment design or? It doesn't make sense (to me, yet) that if the driver of increased CO2-caused ocean degradation is reduced, ocean degradation will not be reduced. This is a common theme across CDR modeling that I have yet to understand.

"Compared to the RCP8.5 simulation without SRM, by the year 2100, SRM reduces atmospheric CO2 by 65 ppm mainly as a result of increased CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere. However, SRM-induced change in atmospheric CO2 and climate has a small effect in mitigating ocean acidification."

Cheers,

B

Bruce Melton PE
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/CAJ3C-04Gdg_eq1GBScwLHW6eKE7y8GJ3hNxua3JO%2Bbh-o3z%3Dhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Sorry all. I meant Jin 2022 (not Jeng 2022). The paper Andrew sent -

Effects of solar radiation modification on the ocean carbon cycle: An earth system modeling study
Author links open overlay panelXiaoyuJinJingyuZhang
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aosl.2022.100187

B

Has anyone digested Jeng 2022 to understand why a reduction of atmospheric CO2 does not reduce ocean impacts?  Is it a bias of the model or experiment design or? It doesn't make sense (to me, yet) that if the driver of increased CO2-caused ocean degradation is reduced, ocean degradation will not be reduced. This is a common theme across CDR modeling that I have yet to understand.

"Compared to the RCP8.5 simulation without SRM, by the year 2100, SRM reduces atmospheric CO2 by 65 ppm mainly as a result of increased CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere. However, SRM-induced change in atmospheric CO2 and climate has a small effect in mitigating ocean acidification."

Cheers,

B

Bruce Melton PE
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

On 12/26/2022 5:29 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04Gdg_eq1GBScwLHW6eKE7y8GJ3hNxua3JO%2Bbh-o3z%3Dhw%40mail.gmail.com.