A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Stabilising the climate requires equality of positive and negative radiative forcing to achieve net zero heating. 

 

Here is a simple model of how climate stability could be achieved over coming decades and centuries using albedo enhancement and greenhouse gas removal. 

 

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Marine Cloud Brightening and other cooling methods can balance CO2 and CH4 and other warming factors.

 

The left half of the diagram is from An Imperative To Monitor Earth’s Energy Imbalance, published in 2016 in Nature Climate Change. 

 

The right half extrapolates radiative forcing to achieve and sustain net zero heating from 2060.   The bands are roughly drawn.

 

It is possible that the main cooling work shown as SAI could be partly replaced by other methods.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

[Sev Clarke]

The image presents the forcings and solutions with beautiful simplicity. However, some of its forecasts and methods could do with some modification. For instance, whilst at a considerable stretch we might just possibly manage to reduce our own methane emissions, those of both methane and CO2 from warming permafrost and hydrates (and tropospheric H2O from lagged warming effects) are likely to grow exponentially from current levels for at least a few decades - more if we do not manage to refreeze most of the Arctic (excepting shipping lanes) by 2040. Furthermore, I do not see represented the increasing loss of albedo from sea ice loss in both polar regions and those at the third pole, nor the contribution to increasing thermal radiation management's (TRM) negative forcing that might be made by a variety of methods - particularly those that increase evaporation or transpiration.

Regarding the proposed solutions, I do not see permission being given to SAI regional deployment when other, less risky methods, are available in the forms of MCB, ISA, Seatomisers, Ice Shields, Biochar, and Buoyant Flakes. By my back-of-envelope calculations, the entirety of the SAI contribution, and more, could be provided using Buoyant Flake Ocean Fertilisation to increase the albedo of the dark blue high seas (0.06) to a slightly lighter turquoise shade of (0.12) - green grass being 0.25. Might the modellers amongst our communities please model this effect to confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Sev 

<image001.png>

-- 
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/09aa01d95626%243c8cb2a0%24b5a617e0%24%40rtulip.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Sev

 

Thanks for these comments.  Diagram attached.

 

As you say, it aims to provide a simple presentation of forcings and solutions.  As such, it provides an initial crude schematic for how forcings (CO2, CH4 etc) must equal solutions (albedo enhancement etc) in order to stabilise the climate with net zero heating.  So you are right that other methods such as those you mention (ISA, Seatomisers, Ice Shields, Biochar, and Buoyant Flakes), as well as many others will be needed. 

 

My schematic method was to take the existing negative radiative forcing sources shown in the Nature article diagram and expand them to the wattage needed to counterbalance warming.  I have marked aerosol-radiation effects simply as SAI, and aerosol-cloud effects as MCB.  As you point out many other methods other than SAI and MCB also have these cooling effects. 

 

You ask about the loss of albedo from sea ice loss.  It is a puzzle to me why the article authors did not include this important factor in the negative forcings, given the data on falling overall planetary albedo. It might fall under the negative green bar representing land use, but that would imply that total albedo changes from land use are negative, whereas ice melt is a major factor.

 

I have assumed that CO2 emissions will continue to increase for some decades.  As you point out it would be important to also get a more accurate forecast of CH4.  I have shown CH4 rapidly falling, but do not have good information on its expected trajectory so have included a simple assumption for this rough initial diagram.

 

The political intent is to provide simple scientific proof that the current climate goal of net zero emissions is pointless and worthless and marginal and must be replaced by net zero heating to reverse global warming.  CO2 in the diagram to date looks like a big fat grey slug.  Net Zero by 2050 would barely change the future trajectory I have shown, doing basically nothing to mitigate warming.  This means we should shift focus from accelerating the energy transition to constructing cooling technologies as a climate priority.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/978A6CA0-FD12-4857-B0A5-FAB8B0421780%40me.com.

[Michael Hayes]

There is nothing within this thread that is addressed directly to any aspect of the extensive list of STEM, policy, and/or socioeconomics level issues within the recognized CDR space.

--

[rob...@rtulip.net]

With all due respect Michael Hayes, your failure to see the relevance to CDR ignores the global warming context of CDR. 

 

The thread quantifies the planetary heating and cooling balance based on published research documenting factors to date. It shows the total contribution needed from carbon dioxide removal and other greenhouse gas removal as well as cooling factors to achieve net zero heating.   It also explains prioritisation, showing that CDR has to operate over a slower time frame than albedo enhancement. I expect that is what you object to, but it is a simple scientific observation. 

 

To quantify Net Zero Heating is directly relevant to CDR by placing CDR within the context of total radiative forcing.  That is why I posted it to the CDR Group. 

 

Are you a moderator at the CDR Group?  If not, can I suggest you leave list moderation to the moderators?

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2023 7:46 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [prag] Re: [CDR] A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating

 

There is nothing within this thread that is addressed directly to any aspect of the extensive list of STEM, policy, and/or socioeconomics level issues within the recognized CDR space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABjtO1dvPpMFJDx_jcY6kX2F7KvEqDa%2BiojL9dokLYVDAx441A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Suggest whatever you wish, I'll object to any non CDR post being posted in the CDR list. 

[rob...@rtulip.net]

The policy context for carbon dioxide removal includes its effect on radiative forcing.  RF management is critical to the goal of a stable and liveable climate.  CDR can only have climate effect when integrated into a program of albedo enhancement to cut radiative forcing. 

 

The need to focus on RF is unpalatable for CDR advocates who prefer to ignore the problems of global warming.  And yet it seems inescapable that failure to enhance albedo will trigger tipping points that will swamp potential climate benefits of CDR.

 

A ten foot levee is no good against a twenty foot flood.  But that is the result of a climate policy fixated on carbon rather than albedo.

 

RT

--

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/09aa01d95626%243c8cb2a0%24b5a617e0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Greg Rau]

Robert,

Are you then suggesting that efforts into CDR are misplaced? True, CDR isn't going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but it and emissions reduction are the only things we've got to hasten the solution to excess CO2. This includes ending ocean acidification that SRM presumably can't touch. I can't speak for the entire CDR list, but many of us do support SRM research, a theme ably covered by the other lists you posted to but not the CDR list.

Regards,

Greg

Moderator

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/020201d95768%241e855490%245b8ffdb0%24%40rtulip.net.

--

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

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks Greg. 

 

The relevance of the net zero heating model to CDR is about policy.  IPCC wrongly assumes that action to remove carbon warming forcing could be enough to stabilise the climate.  The exclusion of albedo measures from serious COP discussion has created a false over-estimation of the potential contribution of CDR and emission reduction to the overall climate priority agenda.  Efforts into CDR are misplaced where they support the current IPCC consensus that sees no role for albedo enhancement in climate policy.  The fact that even massive CDR cannot be enough to prevent dangerous tipping points ought to be a primary concern for CDR advocates.  The current policy goal of net zero emissions lacks a critical engineering path in view of the swamping problem of accelerating feedbacks.  So my call to the CDR community is to join in challenging the IPCC consensus that action on carbon is the only climate priority, and instead help to develop an integrated policy that recognises the immediate need for direct climate cooling.  Reversing acidification is essential, but it can’t be used as an excuse to avoid the need for a policy that integrates action on carbon with action to brighten the planet.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

[Anderson, Paul]

Robert, Greg, and  all,    (but not arriving at discussion  groups to which I am not subscribed, so please forward if you can.)

 

There is a multi-decade lag in the official recognition (and allowance of official support) of climate correction technologies.

 

From late 1990s (Kyoto) to 2015 (Paris), emission reduction was the only horse allowed in the climate race.   Carbon removal (CDR) was not eligible for carbon funding until after Paris, and only in the  past few years has purchasing of CDR units been embraced by a few voluntary (unofficial) leaders.

 

Now there is a wait for Albedo Enhancement (AE) to be allowed (and certainly it is not being embraced).  Maybe the efforts close to or at the earth and ocean surfaces for refreezing the Arctic could get some traction this decade,  but stratospheric tinkering is as unacceptable as major infusions into the ocean currents.

 

Unfortunately, “too  little too late” could be the  historical assessment of pre-2050 efforts to solve the climate crisis.

 

Now an respectful complaint:   In my opinion, several  writers have been expressing criticisms of CDR as diverting attention from their beloved AE / SRM theories and methods.  They would distract attention  from some clearly useful tool because it is competition  for funds and media coverage.    They can  be hurting some efforts that are ALSO needed.

 

We need 1) emission reduction via product substitution, 2) short-term CDR of tree planting, 3) 500+ year biochar CDR, 4) 10,000 year CO2 geologic burial if DAC can become viable, and  5) re-freezing of the Arctic.   But instead of accomplishing those worthy objectives, what could happen is insufficient success that  causes further climate failure that then leads to acts of desperation by future generations to  conduct “try anything” acts of stratospheric and  oceanic modifications that are even then still untested.   Not a good pathway for the superior species on Earth to handle its future existence.

 

Full disclosure:  I work on CDR via biochar made in innovative low cost kilns well suited for use by millions in the  developing countries and small to medium operations in affluent countries.  But it is extremely hard to get any exposure or support because  biochar by impoverished people  is not the  pet topic of the “experts.”   And I am not a marketing  entrepreneur.     (If anyone is curious (or wanting to assist), see “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” at the  website in my signature block.)   

 

Best wishes to  all.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud     Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Website:    https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.                       

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:07 PM
To: 'Greg Rau' <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'NOAC' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: RE: [CDR] RE: A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating

 

This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03a301d95864%24751dc740%245f5955c0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Dan Galpern]

I do not know where you find this "current IPCC consensus that sees no role for albedo enhancement in climate policy."

There is discussion about the state of knowledge re albedo questions in the 6th Assessment Report, 

including with respect to SRM so that, for instance, in the AR6 WGIII report, at p. 340:

"In the context of mitigation pathways, only a  few studies have
examined solar radiation modification (SRM), typically focusing on
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (Arinoa et al. 2016; Emmerling and
Tavoni 2018a,b; Heutel et al. 2018; Helwegen et al. 2019; Rickels
et al. 2020; Belaia et al. 2021). These studies find that substantial
mitigation is required to limit warming to a given level, even if SRM
is available (Moreno-Cruz and Smulders 2017; Emmerling and Tavoni
2018b; Belaia et al. 2021). SRM may reduce some climate impacts,
reduce peak temperatures, lower mitigation costs, and extend the
time available to achieve mitigation; however, SRM does not address
ocean acidification and may involve risks to crop yields, economies,
human health, or ecosystems (AR6 WGII Chapter 16; AR6 WGI TS and
Chapter 5; SR1.5 SPM; and Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14
of this report). There are also significant uncertainties surrounding
SRM, including uncertainties on the costs and risks, which can
substantially alter the amount of SRM used in modelled pathways
(Tavoni et al. 2017; Heutel et al. 2018; IPCC 2018; Helwegen
et al. 2019; NASEM 2021). Furthermore, the degree of international
cooperation can influence the amount of SRM deployed in scenarios,
with uncoordinated action resulting in larger SRM deployment and
consequently larger risks/impacts from SRM (Emmerling and Tavoni
2018a). Bridging research and governance involves consideration
of the full range of societal choices and ramifications (Sugiyama
et al. 2018). More information on SRM, including the caveats, risks,
uncertainties, and governance issues is found in AR6 WGI Chapter 4;
AR6 WGIII Chapter 14; and Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14
of this report."

And that Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14 of the WGIII report goes on for 5 pages discussing 

SRM schemes, use in mitigation scenarios, risks and risk reduction, ethics, and governance. 

[Box contained with/in SRM discussion at 1488-1494.]

The IPCC's treatment of SRM methods and governance issues seems to me to be steady and cautious, 

but no more so than its treatment of CDR methods and governance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03a301d95864%24751dc740%245f5955c0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Dan

The central point is not whether IPCC ARs 1-6 have discussed the current state of the albedo enhancement (AE/SRM) literature but rather that they have failed to address the emerging (some would say long since emerged) evidence indicating that a LWR only policy will not deliver the UNFCCC's 'ultimate objective' of preventing dangerous human intervention in the climate.  This evidence is well presented, for example, in Jim Hansen et al's recent Warming in the Pipeline.  The AR6 treatment is not a risk/risk review - it considers the risks and uncertainties surrounding the prospective implementation of AE, but not the risks and uncertainties of not implementing AE and sticking with a LWR-only policy regime.

For the avoidance of doubt, and because the CDR Google group is included in this distribution, I stress that AE is not an alternative to a LWR focussed policy regime but absolutely in addition to it.  Reduction of atmospheric CO2e is essential for the medium to long-term stabilisation of the climate but a SWR cooling package is essential in the short-term to create the environmental context for the effective delivery of the LWR cooling to work.  This is both/and, not either/or.

Our problem is that AE is playing catch up because it has been assumed to be unnecessary and/or too risky, and  the reliance placed on CO2e reduction has not been matched by timely and effective action.  Restoring balance will, in the short term, inevitably increase attention on AE.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDojvU4C2tqcesK8H%3D16i_bFJKjjjP5C0nLNZ%2B2pHseV_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anderson, Paul]

Sorry, I missed something.   What are LWR and SWR?  Dangerous to guess and then be incorrect.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud     Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Website:    https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.                       

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Dan Galpern <dan.g...@gmail.com>; rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating

 

This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important

Hi Dan

--
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/4b0a2753-61cd-c7e7-a78c-9ed256979b59%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Paul

Long wave and short wave radiation.  LWR is (mainly) heat that is prevented by greenhouse gases (GHGs) from escaping to outer space.  SWR is (mainly) light.  Insolation is SWR from the sun that is converted to heat when it strikes stuff (mostly solid surfaces and oceans) and some of it is reflected back to outer space by reflective surfaces and particles e.g. snow and ice covered surfaces and and certain aerosols in the atmosphere.

A LWR only policy seeks to stabilise the climate by reducing atmospheric GHGs, thereby allowing more heat to escape.  Adding SWR policies, cools the planet directly and faster by reducing the amount of heat generated by insolation.

Regards

Robert

On 17/03/2023 16:41, Douglas Grandt wrote:

Paul,

Perplexed, I searched my emails for LWR and SWR, which revealed only this:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Chris 

Date: February 15, 2023 at 12:03:57 PM EST

To: Wil Burns, Jim Fleming, claudia...@gmail.com

Cc: Greg Rau, Ken Caldeira, carbondiox...@googlegroups.com, geoengineering

Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

Might there be some merit in drawing a distinction between methods that affect short-wave radiation and those that affect long-wave radiation (not necessarily using the word 'radiation')?  This distinction is important because while LWR methods are essential in the medium to long-term and remain urgent to scale because of their lengthy climate response time, they are now unlikely to be capable of keeping surface temperature below tipping point thresholds.  For that only SWR methods can work.  The difference between approaches capable of delivering climate stability and those that will keep us in the game long enough to enjoy that future climate stability, is perhaps one that needs emphasising at every opportunity.

Trying to find a single term that unambiguously and universally describes the nature of the technology, its climatic impact, and its controllability and risk profile across the multiple dimensions of the intractably complex climate system (including the biosphere and human society), seems to me to be asking rather a lot of a couple of words.

It might also be worth noting that we are having this debate in English but most of the world don't speak English.  Are we expecting to take control of this usage in every language?  

CDR, SRM, intervention, management and so on, all these words and terms have become imbued with nuanced, imprecise and variable  meanings.  Those contributing to this thread have comprehensively demonstrated that there is no single answer to what is the best terminology - if this group of luminaries haven't  been able to come up with it, then no one will.  If there is perceived to be such critical sensitivity in how we communicate ideas focused on averting a climate crisis, perhaps we should consider those sensitivities in more depth.  From that would likely emerge a language that offers greater power and flexibility. 

Regards

Robert

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Mar 17, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932A45FC313AADD80908D17DBBD9%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Hi Dan. Good to hear from you. What IPCC says about SRM not affecting ocean acidity is a part of the bias of reporting on academic literature. So little work has been done on SRM that impacts on the ocean acidification rate are not yet forthcoming, so consensus reporting responds reticently. A better statement on SRM and ocean acidification from IPCC should have been, "SRM may reduce some climate impacts, reduce peak temperatures, lower mitigation costs, and extend the time available to achieve mitigation; however, SRM does not directly address ocean acidification..."  Indirectly though - what is known and understood about our climate is that a reduction of Earth's atmospheric temperature reduces natural feedback emissions that are always occurring, and occur at a greater rate relative to warming. So a reduction of warming reduces the ultimate magnitude of acidification by reducing feedback emissions, regardless of where the reduction of warming comes from. From my archives below:

Geoengineering Reduces Cumulative CO2…
Abstract, "Solar geoengineering is no substitute for cutting emissions, but could nevertheless help reduce the atmospheric carbon burden. In the extreme, if solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5, the carbon burden may be reduced by ~100 GTC, equivalent to 12–26% of twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO." It is also important to note that all other warming related responses are reduced like ocean acidification, arctic melt, forest collapse, non-dynamic sea level rise, etc.

Keith et al, Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric CO2 burden, Nature Climate Change, September 2017.
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/keith_et_al._-_2017_-_solar_geoengineering_reduces_atmospheric_carbon_bu.pdf

Steep Trails,

Bruce

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/CANNDMDojvU4C2tqcesK8H%3D16i_bFJKjjjP5C0nLNZ%2B2pHseV_g%40mail.gmail.com.