RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Robert Tulip
I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."
It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)
As the NOAA AGGI report states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C.
Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.
My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol.
It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.
I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.
Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra "the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben and others now do.
I think the factors that could change public opinion quite quickly include the idea that immediate action to refreeze the Arctic is essential to maintain stability of main ocean currents. I was very perturbed to see the report last week on the slowing down of the AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Gulf Stream collapse, with potential disasters for the world economy and ecology.
The linked press report suggested that decarbonising the economy is "the only thing to do" to prevent the AMOC from stopping. That is an absurdly unscientific opinion. It just fails to see that such natural processes require action at orders of magnitude bigger scale than the marginal effect of slowing down how much carbon we add to the air.
If steps were taken to fully refreeze the Arctic Ocean, perhaps with the quid pro quo of including transpolar shipping canals through the ice, the scale would be big enough to stop the dangerous looming tipping points of accelerating feedback warming. Alongside AMOC, big problems such as polar methane release, wandering of the jet stream and melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet are also well beyond what decarbonisation can prevent.
I really don't see any downside to such a freezing proposal, which should be an Apollo-type world peace project led by the G20. The climate activist community sees it as enabling a slower transition to renewables, but surely buying time in this way is entirely a good thing if it means we actually stabilise the climate?
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Cormia
Sent: Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM
To: chris.vivian2 <Chris....@btinternet.com>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
It took decades to get the public's attention about the clear and present danger of climate change, through extreme weather events, historic fires, and sea level rise. CDR is entering the dialog, slowly, it needs to accelerate. Newscasters could add a simple soundbite "net zero emissions and CO2 removal" as strategies, not just "clean energy and electric cars" How do we gain the public's awareness, much less attention, that putting a speed brake on emissions requires CDR, and restoring energy balance (addressing energy imbalance) is our best potential/feasible solution?
-rdc
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:48 AM 'chris.vivian2' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers published today, see sections D.1.4 to D.1.6 on page 40 where it mentions CDR - https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
Chris
--
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/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%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 to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com.
Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au.
SALTER Stephen
Hi All
Behind every root cause is another root cause. The root cause of greenhouse gases is excessive human population. An effective solution to that is uncomfortably topical but would not be well received.
Stephen
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:30 PM
To: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com.
Jonathan Marshall
Yes it is true that there are levels of population which are unsustainable, but the problem with emissions is the distribution of emissions via population.
It would seem obvious that if we were to focus on lowering populations we should lower those populations which have the greatest ecological and climate impact per head. That is we should lower the populations of the US and Australia etc, first.
We should probably volunteer for elimination.....
________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 7:09 AM
To: cushn...@gmail.com; rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Hi All
Behind every root cause is another root cause. The root cause of greenhouse gases is excessive human population. An effective solution to that is uncomfortably topical but would not be well received.
Stephen
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:30 PM
To: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
Dear Robert
I enjoyed pretty much reading your critique on the IPCC AR6 report and the AMOC report. I notices that thèse reports put an emphasis on mitigation and negative emissions as the way to slowing down ice melting and Climate variability. Yet, these arguments seem to be "unscientific" to you because of your take on Solar geoengineering. Yet, many observées think that brightening the marine clouds and spraying aérosols do not solve the very cause of Climate change, which is GHGe. Yet, to D. Hume's point of view, a "scientific" control is the one that Solves causality, meaning a solution that controls or stabilises the causes. What is your take on this? To what science do you refer to in your commenté? Who is fooling who?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Regards
Cush
I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."
It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)
Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.
My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol.
It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.
I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.
Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra "the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben and others now do.
The linked press report suggested that decarbonising the economy is "the only thing to do" to prevent the AMOC from stopping. That is an absurdly unscientific opinion. It just fails to see that such natural processes require action at orders of magnitude bigger scale than the marginal effect of slowing down how much carbon we add to the air.
I really don't see any downside to such a freezing proposal, which should be an Apollo-type world peace project led by the G20. The climate activist community sees it as enabling a slower transition to renewables, but surely buying time in this way is entirely a good thing if it means we actually stabilise the climate?
Robert Tulip
Sent: Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM
To: chris.vivian2 <Chris....@btinternet.com<mailto:Chris....@btinternet.com>>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [CDR] IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
It took decades to get the public's attention about the clear and present danger of climate change, through extreme weather events, historic fires, and sea level rise. CDR is entering the dialog, slowly, it needs to accelerate. Newscasters could add a simple soundbite "net zero emissions and CO2 removal" as strategies, not just "clean energy and electric cars" How do we gain the public's awareness, much less attention, that putting a speed brake on emissions requires CDR, and restoring energy balance (addressing energy imbalance) is our best potential/feasible solution?
-rdc
In the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers published today, see sections D.1.4 to D.1.6 on page 40 where it mentions CDR - https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf>>.
Chris
--
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<mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
--
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<mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB79607CFA286D6C9A5196E2C2A7F89%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB79607CFA286D6C9A5196E2C2A7F89%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Michael MacCracken
Actually, on population, back in 2000, the one billion or so in the developed world had us (and still do have us) on a path that would cause disastrous change, just a few decades later. To stop climate this billion was going to have to change its ways.
At the time, the five billion or so in the developed world were a
pretty small share of the problem and if they had gone to zero
emissions, as noted, the billion would have to have changed--and
be doing so now.
Of course, now the six billion in developing world are increasing their emissions, still at a per capita level lower than in the developed world, and even if developed world went to zero emissions, the path they are on would take them to disastrous climate change.
Both developed and developing have to change their ways and choices--we really can't have any emissions and need to get to negative emissions, so it is the choices that all of us have and are making that is the really key issue, and this is true no matter what the population is assuming it stays above a billion or so.
So, not really appropriate to be thinking population is the key
issue--it is our choices that need to change, for all of us, no
matter the number. Yes, with fewer people it might be a bit easier
for the world to change and stretch out the time maybe a decade,
but given we are already a couple of decades too late, the focus
has to be on the choices and changing them--rapidly.
Mike MacCracken
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB79607CFA286D6C9A5196E2C2A7F89%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.
Robert Tulip
Hello Cush
As I mentioned, the issue is timeframes.
You are correct that GHGs are the cause of climate change. That does not mean removing GHGs, let alone just slowing the rate of increase as the AR6 summary implies, is the only possible response.
Reducing GHG levels and emissions will take a long time. Meanwhile we face extreme weather, biodiversity collapse and the risk of various dangerous tipping points. We have a planetary duty to address these crises.
Increasing albedo could prevent many effects of warming. Brightening the pole would do far more to protect the AMOC than GHG removal would. Higher albedo would bring numerous beneficial flow on effects for planetary stability and security. It is absurdly stupid that these benefits of a brighter planet are not factored into IPCC calculations on risk, illustrating the dominance of politics over science.
Cutting emissions will not protect AMOC on a timescale shorter than a century. That is far too slow to be relevant to the looming security emergency of a great oceanic disruption.
The same issue applies for ice melt, methane release and other phase shifts now occurring. We need to buy time to ramp up GHG removal by brightening the planet.
Regards, Robert
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:30 AM
To: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com.
Robert Tulip
Hello Valerie
You may not have understood my comments. Sorry if I was not clear.
You state “Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all.” That is not true. Per my first comment, headline B.1 of the SPM implies that only emission reduction can prevent dangerous warming. That is a climate policy assertion, ruling out the alternative view that preventing dangerous warming requires increased albedo.
The complete absence of discussion of albedo from the SPM gives rise to the concern that it will not be addressed in later IPCC reports unless there is significant policy change.
Robert
From: Nucleation Capital <nucleati...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:38 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; val...@nucleationcapital.com
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Robert,
Just so you are aware, the report released by the IPCC this week is just the IPCC Working Group 1 portion of a much larger three-part report, looking at the Physical bases. The official description is: "The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate simulations." Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all, just a summary of the physical findings. I believe the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report, due out in September 2022, will have the policy discussion that you are looking for. See here for the IPCC's full description of the sections and contents of the Sixth Assessment (i.e. the 6th full assessment in 30 years).
Valerie
Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Kevin Lister
- If you are dropping wind turbines out of a plane, then best guess is that these would have a maximum power output of 2kW, or thereabouts. If they successfully land and penetrate the ice and start pumping, and the water forms a volcano shaped dome, with an inclination angle of 0.1 deg, then it will take a approximately 161 days to grow a cone that is 3 meters high at the pump, and it will have a radius of 1.7km. It would then take about 107,000 of these to cover the ice sheet. That's a lot and probably far more than all the planes of the US strategic deployment force can deliver at the beginning of winter. Even if this is successful, a significant number will be released from the edge of the ice in summer, say 10%, so approximately 10,000 will float around in the ocean.
- You do not know the angle that the water will settle on the ice,
- You do not know what shape the ice will form around the pump, it is likely to be a more complex and irregular doughnut shape. The mathematics behind this is extremely complicated, and after about a year's effort I managed only a partial solution before giving up.
- You do not know what effect the continual heat flow from the subsurface water being pumped onto the existing ice surface will have. In extremis, the pumps could cause the ice adjacent to them to melt so all they end up doing is pumping water into water.
- Even if there are solutions to all of these, there is the practical engineering matter of establishing the reliability of the pumps, especially when they are to operate in the Arctic winter which is both cold, dark and inaccessible.
- With the heat flow into the Arctic from the lower latitudes, then getting reliable and consistent ice formation, even in the depths of winter, may no longer be possible.
- Ice formed on the surface of existing ice is of a totally different structure to ice naturally formed by freezing downwards from the existing ice. This new ice may have a structure more like glass and be of low albedo, so in the summer it could act as a miniature greenhouse on the existing ice, which is also being warmed from below, thus accelerating the loss of existing ice when it is needed the most. This would be the worst case scenario. We prevent heat release in the winter and minimise albedo in the summer.
- It is now as big an issue to release heat from the planet as it is to stop more heat coming in. Given that the Arctic sea ice is now fatally doomed, an alternative is to accept this and smash up the remaining ice in the winter with icebreakers to allow the most rapid release of heat to space, at an estimated rate ~500W/m^2
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au.
John Harte
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAE%3DUiezcG6_KoUsZMQN4jGfV1MA4EEVmmn_L_%2BHjqq3P6bok1g%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael MacCracken
Hi John--I've heard arguments both ways on this (e.g., Susan Solomon et al. some years ago in Science; she worked with CO2e and I think used the CO2 decay times, and had a very long tail; I've heard, I think it was, Steve Pacala and Steve Hamburg make the same point you are--namely the fluxes would continue for a while and I think they suggest the CO2 concentration would get pulled down by about 50 ppm) and am wondering what the resolution is on this (I've yet to read the IPCC relevant chapter on this).
Basically, the question is the extent to which these fluxes are driven by the concentration gradient created by the current year's emissions versus by the gradients created by past emissions. For the atmosphere to the wind-mixed upper ocean, the lag time I think is pretty short (1-2 years), but then from the upper ocean to deep ocean may well be based mainly on gradient created by past emissions, so it may persist for a while, but that flux is pretty small, so emissions would need to get below the value of that flux to start to pull things down.
For atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere, ignoring the return flux due to fire, don't experiments like the FACE studies show that higher CO2 stimulates additional growth for a few years and then starts to tail off, so does not higher uptake stop pretty fast if there is no longer a gradient, etc.
Is there a good well-documented resolution about this where theory and models and observations agree what happens if one basically heads down toward zero emissions by 2050 or so?
Mike MacCracken
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/F676A5E0-67CA-4F55-BF32-7162310577B9%40berkeley.edu.
John Harte
Andrew Revkin
And the latest climate simulations show a mix of inevitability and opportunity - that future warming remains mostly a function of emissions yet to come and centuries of future sea-level rise are locked in but the pace can be greatly slowed, along with odds of disruptive acceleration.
There's a touch of good news in one finding - that the capacity of oceans and terrestrial ecosystems to absorb a significant fraction of human-generated carbon dioxide is, for now, not diminishing:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/336BA4D9-14F2-4788-B0FF-5292B30F3D0F%40berkeley.edu.
John Harte
<ar6chap5faqSinks.pdf>
Kevin Lister
Michael MacCracken
Hi Kevin--On your point 2, I think the amount taken up each
season that you have is mistaken. The global concentration change
by 8 ppm through the season is only happening in the Northern
Hemisphere. And I think in terms of atmospheric loading, the total
global loading is roughly 2 GtC per ppm. So, when I do the
calculation of what the Mauna Loa 8-10 ppm seasonal variation in
the CO2 concentration implies, I get 8-10 GtC/year for the net
seasonal greening of the Northern Hemisphere, not the 32 GtC/year
that you are getting. Now, my number is for the "net" and the
"gross" uptake would be greater as there is decay going on, so
perhaps I missed what you were saying.
And if we say the emissions are 10 GtC/year, and then that the airborne fraction is holding steady at about a half (or a bit less), one can divide the emissions by 4 to get the rough increase per year in ppm, so roughly 2.5 ppm/year.
As to how to interpret all of this, these relations are with
steadily rising emissions, and the question to get to is what can
this tell us when emissions are going down and eventually to zero
or negative. Is the near steadiness of the ratios due to the fact
that the total concentration is rising compared to preindustrial
(and upper to deep ocean flux is likely related to this as deep
ocean has 1000 year cycle time) and so that flux will continue for
some time, or is the steadiness due to the fact that each year's
emissions are rising (which may apply to the terrestrial biosphere
uptake as FACE experiments (i.e., field experiments imposing
plants to high levels of CO2) tend to saturate in a few years (at
least for shrubs, if perhaps not for forests), perhaps being
limited by the amount of nutrients and water that can be drawn up
to take advantage of the higher CO2 concentration.
I am not an expert on all of this and am assuming some good
modeling has been done. I'm just saying I've heard a range of
views and would like to understand better as I am pretty wary of
just applying rules of thumb we draw mainly from a period of
steadily, even exponentially, rising emissions to the situation of
declining emissions in a warmer world when we have wildfires and
pests tearing ecosystems apart.
Mike
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAE%3DUiewDMYSegx8Kkha0wkrZ-rvA-p-j07bLcTi7RG8UNMT0SA%40mail.gmail.com.
John Harte
On Aug 13, 2021, at 2:46 AM, Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John, I see that Mike has gotten to the answer while I've been drafting my response, but here are some further numbers and positions to support his argument and the point that I was making......Point 1
There is nearly perfect correlation between CO2 concentration and fossil fuel consumption, with R^2=0.9991 from 1965 to 2019. 1965 is when BP started collecting the best reliable set of fossil fuel consumption. The relationship is likely to now be broken with the forest fires and other large scale CO2 releases - I not gotten round to checking.
<image.png>Atmospheric CO2 concentration started rising immediately at the start of the industrial revolution, when emissions were much lower than they are today. So we can be reasonably sure that the straight line relationship above can be extrapolated back to the start of the industrial revolution. Therefore, at best, the rate of permanent CO2 removal must be constant otherwise the relationship would not be a straight line, and it must be very small otherwise the atmospheric concentrations would not have responded so quickly at the start of the industrial revolution.Point 2From the slope of the line and the high correlation, we can get a reasonable prediction of what change in atmospheric CO2 levels equates to CO2 emissions. We also know that the annual cycle is about 8ppm, so from this we can conclude that approximately 32,059 million tonnes of carbon are absorbed from the atmosphere each summer, but these are emitted back in the winter. So this cycle is in the same order of magnitude that you have suggested, but this is not permanent Carbon storage. Getting carbon deep into the ground where it does not come back up is what we need to do, but this is different from the annual cycle and a much slower process. From recollection IPCC AR5 gave a figure of 0.2 million tonnes of permanent carbon removal per year, and this concurs with the observations above.Point 3The extremely low rate of permanent removal is independently verified in the data from the Vostok Ice Core which shows consistent CO2 removal over the last 4 interglacial cycles. When applying this rate of permanent removal to the 450ppm, we get a 250,000 year time period to return to the upper limits of past CO2 concentrations in interglacial cycles, see graph below:
Kevin Lister
| year | CO2 cycle drop | CO2 rise | Annual CO2 emissions | expected rise in CO2 due to emissions | Corrected drop | corrected rise |
| 1965 | 4.86 | 6.71 | 11,194 | 0.81 | 5.67 | 5.90 |
| 1966 | 5.91 | 6.9 | 11,709 | 0.85 | 6.76 | 6.05 |
| 1967 | 5.69 | 6.26 | 12,068 | 0.88 | 6.57 | 5.38 |
| 1968 | 5.32 | 7.09 | 12,726 | 0.92 | 6.24 | 6.17 |
| 1969 | 5.56 | 6.35 | 13,519 | 0.98 | 6.54 | 5.37 |
| 1970 | 5.03 | 5.82 | 14,269 | 1.04 | 6.07 | 4.78 |
| 1971 | 5.56 | 6.71 | 14,766 | 1.07 | 6.63 | 5.64 |
| 1972 | 5.14 | 7.55 | 15,468 | 1.12 | 6.26 | 6.43 |
| 1973 | 5.3 | 6.01 | 16,315 | 1.19 | 6.49 | 4.82 |
| 1974 | 5.98 | 6.7 | 16,229 | 1.18 | 7.16 | 5.52 |
| 1975 | 5.55 | 6.42 | 16,249 | 1.18 | 6.73 | 5.24 |
| 1976 | 6.01 | 8.05 | 17,129 | 1.24 | 7.25 | 6.81 |
| 1977 | 5.63 | 6.82 | 17,676 | 1.28 | 6.91 | 5.54 |
| 1978 | 5.68 | 6.87 | 17,978 | 1.31 | 6.99 | 5.56 |
| 1979 | 5.27 | 7.54 | 18,556 | 1.35 | 6.62 | 6.19 |
| 1980 | 5.42 | 6.96 | 18,389 | 1.34 | 6.76 | 5.62 |
| 1981 | 6.09 | 7.75 | 18,152 | 1.32 | 7.41 | 6.43 |
| 1982 | 6.35 | 7.64 | 17,977 | 1.31 | 7.66 | 6.33 |
| 1983 | 5.79 | 7.38 | 18,144 | 1.32 | 7.11 | 6.06 |
| 1984 | 6.2 | 7.57 | 18,811 | 1.37 | 7.57 | 6.20 |
| 1985 | 5.84 | 7.45 | 19,173 | 1.39 | 7.23 | 6.06 |
| 1986 | 6.06 | 7.67 | 19,508 | 1.42 | 7.48 | 6.25 |
| 1987 | 5.62 | 7.66 | 20,109 | 1.46 | 7.08 | 6.20 |
| 1988 | 5.15 | 6.86 | 20,771 | 1.51 | 6.66 | 5.35 |
| 1989 | 5.87 | 7.27 | 21,166 | 1.54 | 7.41 | 5.73 |
| 1990 | 6.01 | 7.81 | 21,290 | 1.55 | 7.56 | 6.26 |
| 1991 | 6.79 | 7.25 | 21,280 | 1.55 | 8.34 | 5.70 |
| 1992 | 6.62 | 7.26 | 21,354 | 1.55 | 8.17 | 5.71 |
| 1993 | 6.09 | 7.58 | 21,419 | 1.56 | 7.65 | 6.02 |
| 1994 | 6.05 | 8.14 | 21,653 | 1.57 | 7.62 | 6.57 |
| 1995 | 5.8 | 7.19 | 21,896 | 1.59 | 7.39 | 5.60 |
| 1996 | 5.62 | 7.15 | 22,527 | 1.64 | 7.26 | 5.51 |
| 1997 | 6.38 | 9.18 | 22,741 | 1.65 | 8.03 | 7.53 |
| 1998 | 5.48 | 6.95 | 22,793 | 1.66 | 7.14 | 5.29 |
| 1999 | 6.02 | 6.88 | 23,116 | 1.68 | 7.70 | 5.20 |
| 2000 | 4.91 | 6.91 | 23,668 | 1.72 | 6.63 | 5.19 |
| 2001 | 5.66 | 7.49 | 23,982 | 1.74 | 7.40 | 5.75 |
| 2002 | 5.14 | 7.99 | 24,502 | 1.78 | 6.92 | 6.21 |
| 2003 | 5.4 | 7.53 | 25,716 | 1.87 | 7.27 | 5.66 |
| 2004 | 6.52 | 8.36 | 27,044 | 1.96 | 8.48 | 6.40 |
| 2005 | 5.81 | 8.32 | 28,142 | 2.04 | 7.85 | 6.28 |
| 2006 | 6.06 | 7.66 | 29,019 | 2.11 | 8.17 | 5.55 |
| 2007 | 5.68 | 7.6 | 30,048 | 2.18 | 7.86 | 5.42 |
| 2008 | 5.51 | 7.2 | 30,337 | 2.20 | 7.71 | 5.00 |
| 2009 | 5.8 | 8.65 | 29,719 | 2.16 | 7.96 | 6.49 |
| 2010 | 6.21 | 7.38 | 31,058 | 2.26 | 8.47 | 5.12 |
| 2011 | 5.25 | 7.82 | 31,978 | 2.32 | 7.57 | 5.50 |
| 2012 | 5.77 | 8.75 | 32,317 | 2.35 | 8.12 | 6.40 |
| 2013 | 6.25 | 8.27 | 32,800 | 2.38 | 8.63 | 5.89 |
| 2014 | 6.52 | 8.68 | 32,845 | 2.39 | 8.91 | 6.29 |
| 2015 | 6.31 | 10.07 | 32,804 | 2.38 | 8.69 | 7.69 |
| 2016 | 6.67 | 8.62 | 32,914 | 2.39 | 9.06 | 6.23 |
| 2017 | 6.27 | 7.86 | 33,243 | 2.41 | 8.68 | 5.45 |
| 2018 | 5.73 | 9.13 | 33,891 | 2.46 | 8.19 | 6.67 |
| 2019 | 6.12 | 8.79 | 34,169 | 2.48 | 8.60 | 6.31 |
- There is strong correlation between time and annual CO2 removal, with a correlation coefficient of 0.84. thus potentially indicating that the planet is absorbing more CO2 in response to rising atmospheric concentrations.
- The high peaks above the trend in 1992 and 2014 coincide with the Mount Pinatubo and Mount Klyichevshoy which I understand was a significant eruption.
- The peaks rises in 1998 and 2014 which coincide with El Ninos
- There is no rise in natural emissions that is equivalent to the rise in uptake.
John Harte
<image.png>There are a couple of things that are immediately obvious:
- There is strong correlation between time and annual CO2 removal, with a correlation coefficient of 0.84. thus potentially indicating that the planet is absorbing more CO2 in response to rising atmospheric concentrations.
- The high peaks above the trend in 1992 and 2014 coincide with the Mount Pinatubo and Mount Klyichevshoy which I understand was a significant eruption.
Greg Rau
Greg Rau
NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory
325 Broadway
Boulder CO 80305
Ph: 303-497-6898
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/774856028.320386.1628888658281%40mail.yahoo.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 to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Greg--For the airborne fraction to be roughly constant as emissions have gone up, indeed there has to be an increased rate of uptake by the land and oceans (though the ratio between the two has shifted a bit). The question is if the increases are due to the overall increase in the CO2 concentration or to the increment being created each year (or over past couple of years, etc.). If it is the former, then one might expect the fluxes (i.e., sinks) to stay up and only go down slowly such that natural processes would pull the CO2 concentration down say 80 ppm out of the 140-150 ppm (so about a half) that we have gone up. If the latter, rather than the bounce-back being half or so, it might be really quite slow. Viewed this way, it would seem to have a factor of 2 or so influence on hos much CDR would be needed to restore the radiative forcing of the early 20th century or so.
Mike
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/774856028.320386.1628888658281%40mail.yahoo.com.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Kevin--Apologies for delayed response--dealing with improving defense of our home against some increasingly drenching thunderstorms we've been having.
On your first paragraph, because there is much less land, especially in the mid-latitudes, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasonal cycle of CO2 is quite small--as an example, you can see the concentration variation in Australia at https://theconversation.com/southern-hemisphere-joins-north-in-breaching-carbon-dioxide-milestone-59260 . I'm not an expert, but quite likely at least a bit of the small variation may be from the variation in the NH being carried into the SH--and time scale for such spread is of order 6 months. So, there is just very little seasonal variation of CO2 in SH as there is just not much land for seasonal variations in vegetation. This said, there is surely some growth going on--likely mostly steady through the year (on average), but it can't be too much as the SH average concentration is only a bit lower than the NH concentration, and this is due to most sources being in the NH and the time constant for mixing to SH (something like 6-12 months).
I am not sure that the paleo-analog is relevant, but interesting to consider. What the overall record suggests to me is that it takes a lot longer to build up ice sheets than for them to collapse (likely relevant to thinking about Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets--and perhaps an interesting analog for nation building). And temperature cools more slowly than it warms. The CO2 concentration seems pretty well correlated with the temperature in the Vostok core, with a bit of a lag, which would seem roughly consistent with the atmospheric mixing into the ocean as its temperature drops. So, the question is what is determining the slow rate of cooling--with the CO2 lagging a bit, it would not that the CO2 change is controlling the temperature, and instead what is limiting cooling is the time it takes to build up ice sheets and, as some have suggested, the time it takes for what cold meltwater there is to cool the ocean, etc. So, I'm not convinced the rate of CO2 increase determined this way gives insight into how the future CO2 may come down rather than, perhaps, how slow the process of cooling the ocean will be, and as long as the ocean is pretty warm, it is just not clear where the excess CO2 will go (especially given that the overturning circulation slows with warming). So, while I'm hesitant to use the exact long time constant you get, but it sure does seem to indicate that the CO2 concentration going down can really only happen as the ocean cools--and that will take time. This does not rule out some sort of adjustment of the type John Harte is suggesting, but how large it will be is the question that will determine how much CDR has to be done (or perhaps we use SRM to accelerate ocean cooling and this will help pull the CO2 concentration down as well--presuming we've gotten emissions to zero.
Mike
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAE%3DUiewCh1Mdi4ndVRqN1GFGNgbRMXQFbsrqrBKTma2da0chZA%40mail.gmail.com.
Robert Tulip
Hi John, your points below raise essential questions about the justification for CDR compared to the main current policy focus on net zero through decarbonisation.
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that your point 4, about the 5 Gt(C) now removed each year by natural processes, is not relevant to a future net zero scenario.
The 5 GTC is removed each year mainly because the 10 GTC/y emission increase creates a disequilibrium with the ocean, so most of that extra CO2 is stored as carbonic acid in the sea. If we stopped adding 10 GTC/y, there would be no forcing for this ongoing increase of ocean acid, and the 5 GTC removal each year would mostly stop as well.
The problem with your argument, as I understand it, is that prior to the emission era the CO2 level was stable at 280 ppm, but your 5 GTC/y natural removal figure implies it should have been falling by 2ppm/y.
If we get to net zero just by decarbonising, we will sit at 600 ppm CO2e, given the future GHG emissions to 2050. In this Gedank, without CDR, there would then be nothing to pull that GHG level down to the Holocene norm. The ongoing 600 ppm equivalent level will cause rapid sea level rise and other ongoing catastrophes.
So the strategy needs to be immediate planetary brightening to slow down extinction and weather extremes, alongside ramping up CDR, rather than putting all the eggs in the decarbonisation basket.
The IPCC just does not see or acknowledge this logic, let alone refute it. It is a security and psychology crisis produced by the bullying that creates excessive scientific caution.
Net zero has to be seen only as a milestone on the path to massive carbon removals, not as an end in itself. So the main input to achieving net zero has to be CDR, not decarbonisation, to create the momentum and trajectory to continue toward climate stability and repair. But before that, the world urgently needs SRM as a tourniquet to stop the patient bleeding to death before we reach the CDR operating table.
Robert Tulip
John Harte
On Aug 13, 2021, at 10:01 PM, Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:Hi John, your points below raise essential questions about the justification for CDR compared to the main current policy focus on net zero through decarbonisation.My understanding, which may be wrong, is that your point 4, about the 5 Gt(C) now removed each year by natural processes, is not relevant to a future net zero scenario.The 5 GTC is removed each year mainly because the 10 GTC/y emission increase creates a disequilibrium with the ocean, so most of that extra CO2 is stored as carbonic acid in the sea. If we stopped adding 10 GTC/y, there would be no forcing for this ongoing increase of ocean acid, and the 5 GTC removal each year would mostly stop as well.
The problem with your argument, as I understand it, is that prior to the emission era the CO2 level was stable at 280 ppm, but your 5 GTC/y natural removal figure implies it should have been falling by 2ppm/y.
If we get to net zero just by decarbonising, we will sit at 600 ppm CO2e,
given the future GHG emissions to 2050. In this Gedank, without CDR, there would then be nothing to pull that GHG level down to the Holocene norm. The ongoing 600 ppm equivalent level will cause rapid sea level rise and other ongoing catastrophes.So the strategy needs to be immediate planetary brightening to slow down extinction and weather extremes, alongside ramping up CDR, rather than putting all the eggs in the decarbonisation basket.The IPCC just does not see or acknowledge this logic, let alone refute it. It is a security and psychology crisis produced by the bullying that creates excessive scientific caution.Net zero has to be seen only as a milestone on the path to massive carbon removals, not as an end in itself. So the main input to achieving net zero has to be CDR, not decarbonisation, to create the momentum and trajectory to continue toward climate stability and repair. But before that, the world urgently needs SRM as a tourniquet to stop the patient bleeding to death before we reach the CDR operating table.
Kevin Lister
| fall | rise | Expected rise due CO2 emissions | corrected drop | correct rise | |
| 1992 | 2.56 | 3.2 | 1.55 | 4.11 | 1.65 |
| 1993 | 1.25 | 2.4 | 1.56 | 2.81 | 0.84 |
| 1994 | 1.01 | 2.11 | 1.57 | 2.58 | 0.54 |
| 1995 | 1.62 | 3.04 | 1.59 | 3.21 | 1.45 |
| 1996 | 1.08 | 2.46 | 1.64 | 2.72 | 0.82 |
| 1997 | 1.52 | 1.96 | 1.65 | 3.17 | 0.31 |
| 1998 | -0.06 | 3.71 | 1.66 | 1.60 | 2.05 |
| 2003 | 0.36 | 2.79 | 1.87 | 2.23 | 0.92 |
| 2004 | 0.91 | 2.54 | 1.96 | 2.87 | 0.58 |
| 2005 | 0.52 | 2.63 | 2.04 | 2.56 | 0.59 |
| 2006 | 0.41 | 2.05 | 2.11 | 2.52 | -0.06 |
| 2007 | 0.28 | 2.52 | 2.18 | 2.46 | 0.34 |
| 2008 | 0.21 | 2.02 | 2.20 | 2.41 | -0.18 |
| 2010 | 0.95 | 3.13 | 2.26 | 3.21 | 0.87 |
| 2011 | 0.74 | 2.22 | 2.32 | 3.06 | -0.10 |
| 2012 | 0.83 | 3.14 | 2.35 | 3.18 | 0.79 |
| 2013 | 0.61 | 3.47 | 2.38 | 2.99 | 1.09 |
| 2015 | 0.54 | 3.07 | 2.38 | 2.92 | 0.69 |
| 2016 | 0.48 | 3.61 | 2.39 | 2.87 | 1.22 |
| 2017 | 1.27 | 3.25 | 2.41 | 3.68 | 0.84 |
| 2018 | 0.58 | 2.9 | 2.46 | 3.04 | 0.44 |
| 2019 | 0.95 | 3.71 | 2.48 | 3.43 | 1.23 |
Kevin Lister
Kevin -When you say that perhaps El Nino events should be prevented, you are referring to SSTA's, yeah?
SALTER Stephen
Hi All
Kevin mentioned El Niño events. The pro El Niño community does not have much political clout so writing messages in Morse code in clouds over an event would be a persuasive and popular demonstration. I did some calculations about the effort required as part of a note on the Schwartz and Slingo analysis of Twomey. I am not confident about the assumptions I have used and would be grateful if people could suggest others and also comment on their understanding of the word ‘oscillation’.
If anyone acquires a taste I can send similar calculations for hurricanes, Arctic ice, sea-level rise and Australian bush fires. Apologies to people who already have them.
Stephen
From: Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2021 9:10 AM
To: Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>;
olivier...@ipsl.fr; Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
Yes, El Nino events seem to undo the increase in sink strength. I remember Stephen Salter proposing marine cloud brightening as a way of managing sea surface temperatures as a way of stopping El Ninos.
Douglas MacMartin
As far as I know, I’m the only one who wrote a paper on this? (Back in 2009… no idea if the analysis stands the test of time or not!)
Nonetheless, while entertaining, would seem unlikely to be any significant benefit in the mean carbon uptake to the extent that it is an oscillation, so damping El Nino’s would also likely damp La Nina’s as well. (Though I could imagine that there might be some reduction in impacts from reducing extreme ENSO events of either sign.)
This seems like a pretty faint and distant tangent to the CDR group though.
SALTER Stephen
Doug
Only very stupid fleet controllers would send spray vessels to where there was a La Niña. We can choose where and when.
Stephen
From: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2021 8:09 PM
To: SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>; Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>; Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>;
olivier...@ipsl.fr
Subject: RE: [CDR] Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
Douglas MacMartin
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2021 4:09:16 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>; Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; olivier...@ipsl.fr <olivier...@ipsl.fr>
olivier boucher
À: "Kevin Lister" <kevin.li...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net>, "Robert Tulip" <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>, "Carbon Dioxide Removal" <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>, "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Envoyé: Vendredi 13 Août 2021 21:32:23
Objet: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Robert Tulip
Hello John Harte, thanks for your response to my points. I am particularly interested in future projections of CO2 equivalents. I am just trying to understand the arithmetic of climate change, and am happy to be corrected if my assumptions or facts are wrong.
I wish the IPCC physical science analysis explained the future trajectory of CO2 equivalents in a more informative way. CO2e is the key climate metric, as the driver of radiative forcing. If the AR6 report does explain these integrated measures, I have not seen it and would welcome citations. I am still reading the technical summary, and have not found good explanation of these key issues.
The best graph I have seen on the global trajectory for CO2e is from NOAA – at https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.fig4.png. It shows a steep rise to the 2020 level of 504 ppm. On the NOAA figures, by my calculation CO2e will hit 600 ppm in 2048 if the emission rate of the last decade continues, and would peak at 562 ppm under a linear reduction to net zero by 2050. So I think my statement about sitting at 600 ppm by 2050 is a reasonable scenario, given the distinct unlikeliness of a linear path to zero by then, and the risk that even the net zero path will cause further large scale methane emissions.
How long would CO2e then stay around 600 ppm in a world of rapidly falling emissions? Your point that the disequilibrium between ocean and atmosphere CO2 operates over longer time than a year means the current 5GtC annual sink would only gradually decline, but also that this decline would be at the direct cost of increased ocean acidification.
Further to your important questions about the future concentration of the atmosphere in that new equilibrium and how fast we will approach it, the problems include whether the world can afford a long period around 600 ppm CO2e, in view of the massive destabilising risks of phase shifts into a hothouse, and whether we need to find better ways to store carbon than as ocean acid, in view of the biodiversity collapse that is already causing. This is why I see large scale ocean based algae production as central to the long term climate solution.
It confused me that NOAA says 66% of warming is from CO2, but the current CO2 level of 415 ppm is 82% of its calculation of CO2e at 504 ppm. I also don’t understand why carbon accounting uses the 100-year metric of 25 x CO2 for methane warming, when the actual effect of methane in the short term is 100 times worse than CO2. I would like to know how NOAA calculates its figure of methane share of radiative forcing, which it says has declined since 1979 from 23% to 16.3%.
I thought you were a bit harsh in saying that “making incorrect statements about current sinks being immeasurably small, and misunderstanding the disequilibrium processes that govern those sinks, is no way to build a believable case for geoengineering.” I did not make any such assertions. If these issues were obvious they would be presented clearly in the WG1 report.
The acidity problem, together with the extreme instability of staying at such a high level of radiative forcing, certainly suggests we should not rely on the ocean sink to gradually remove our emissions. The case for geoengineering is compelling, firstly to prevent the tipping points that will otherwise occur as a result of the fragile nature of our current situation under relentless forcing, and then as the only way to achieve the ongoing stable regulation of the planetary climate that is required to enable human civilization to flourish.
Watching the fall of Kabul last night, I was struck by how people had assumed it would hold for weeks or months, but the pressure of a determined attack led the brittle nature of the government to suddenly shatter. Climate systems like the Greenland Ice Sheet and Siberian permafrost could have similar fragility and face similar sudden phase shifts.
From: John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 15 August 2021 3:17 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>
SALTER Stephen
Doug
Try pulling. It depends on the phase of force relative to velocity.
Kevin Lister
Michael MacCracken
Hi Kevin--Somewhere in an earlier IPCC report (and likely surely elsewhere--perhaps in one of Hansen's papers) there is a CO2 decay equation that has a term (I think mostly exponential decay terms) that is based on the time constants for mixing from the atmosphere into each of the other reservoirs, so into the upper ocean, the deep ocean, the sediments and similarly for the terrestrial biosphere. It might be useful to find that equation and then do the type of evaluation you've done for the seasonal cycle (etc.) and then to explore variations in the time constants included that would reflect such effects as slow down of the ocean circulation, changes in ocean pH, etc.
What bothers me in your analysis is thinking one will go back to something preindustrial (so 300 ppm) as fast as you are indicating. Basically the decline occurs as the amount of CO2 not in sediments mixes through multiple different reservoirs and then is very slowly converted into sediments. What the use of fossil fuels has done is to increase the total amount of CO2 circulating through the various exchanging reservoirs and so, as the increased total amount of CO2 is redistributed among all the parts of the system, I don't think it is appropriate to be thinking about the system in terms of a single decay process and I don't think the concentration will get down to the level at which it was when there was a lower total amount distributed among the reservoirs--that would only occur until all of the fossil fuel CO2 increment is taken up into the sediments, etc.--and that will be a very slow process. This is not to say that the system won't get most of the way there over millennia due to the mixing and new equilibrium distribution that would be established, but full recovery is way, way out there.
Mike
Hawkins, David
Important point Mike.
On our planet there are basically two pools of carbon: loosely, the biosphere and the lithosphere. Exchanges between the sub-pools of the biosphere (air, land, vegetation, water) make up the (comparatively) fast carbon cycle; exchanges between the lithosphere and the biosphere were, prior to the advent of the fossil fuel age, part of the (very) slow carbon cycle.
As you note, the equilibrium content of carbon in the atmosphere, as a component of the biosphere, is a function of the total amount of carbon in the biosphere. Since our use of fossil fuels has transferred an enormous amount of carbon from the lithosphere to the biosphere, the prudent assumption for planning purposes is that once we stop adding carbon and reach a new equilibrium, the equilibrium carbon content of the atmosphere will be significantly higher than pre-industrial levels for a long time (longer than all existing human institutions and developed settlements).
David
From: Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Reply-To: Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 1:37 PM
To: Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>, Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>, Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "gh...@sbcglobal.net" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
Hi Kevin--Somewhere in an earlier IPCC report (and likely surely elsewhere--perhaps in one of Hansen's papers) there is a CO2 decay equation that has a term (I think mostly exponential decay terms) that is based on the time constants for mixing from the atmosphere into each of the other reservoirs, so into the upper ocean, the deep ocean, the sediments and similarly for the terrestrial biosphere. It might be useful to find that equation and then do the type of evaluation you've done for the seasonal cycle (etc.) and then to explore variations in the time constants included that would reflect such effects as slow down of the ocean circulation, changes in ocean pH, etc.
What bothers me in your analysis is thinking one will go back to something preindustrial (so 300 ppm) as fast as you are indicating. Basically the decline occurs as the amount of CO2 not in sediments mixes through multiple different reservoirs and then is very slowly converted into sediments. What the use of fossil fuels has done is to increase the total amount of CO2 circulating through the various exchanging reservoirs and so, as the increased total amount of CO2 is redistributed among all the parts of the system, I don't think it is appropriate to be thinking about the system in terms of a single decay process and I don't think the concentration will get down to the level at which it was when there was a lower total amount distributed among the reservoirs--that would only occur until all of the fossil fuel CO2 increment is taken up into the sediments, etc.--and that will be a very slow process. This is not to say that the system won't get most of the way there over millennia due to the mixing and new equilibrium distribution that would be established, but full recovery is way, way out there.
Mike
On 8/19/21 6:24 AM, Kevin Lister wrote:
Hi Mike,
Likewise apologies for taking the time to reply fully to your email. It's taken a bit of time to read through all the material that this thread has generated and to fully understand the figures emerging as they are quite counter intuitive.
But in summary, it seems to me that your contention about the slow rate of CO2 sequestration in the event of an ice free planet, where the rate of CO2 removal will be given by the Vostok Ice Core data, is the important point, and this backs John's comments about the rate of CO2 removal becoming much diminished once feedbacks kick in.
I have looked further into the differential between the falls and rises in the CO2 annual cycle, using the figures for CO2 falls corrected for emissions of the earlier post (see also Greg's comments) and have extended the data set to take into account the more recent measurements, So, using these figures, it seems to me that if CO2 emissions were to crash down to zero by 2050 we would see a slight rise in concentrations first, followed by a steady decline taking about 250 years for CO2 to fall to 300ppm, see graph below.
There are a couple of things that are immediately obvious:
- There is strong correlation between time and annual CO2 removal, with a correlation coefficient of 0.84. thus potentially indicating that the planet is absorbing more CO2 in response to rising atmospheric concentrations.
- The high peaks above the trend in 1992 and 2014 coincide with the Mount Pinatubo and Mount Klyichevshoy which I understand was a significant eruption.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6d235eef-9137-89fb-92e3-6a170ad27515%40comcast.net.
Michael MacCracken
Hi David--The question is what "significant" means (as a function of time)? So, the pre-industrial atmosphere had of order 600 GtC, there were about 600 GtC is aboveground biomass and perhaps twice that in the ground, and something like 30,000 GtC in the oceans (only several percent of that in the ocean's mixed layer. So, we've added of order 500 GtC from fossil fuels, so the question is how that will eventually redistribute. Of course there is then also the potential that warming will release carbon in permafrost and hydrates (I'm not sure which of the two pools you would put that in) that would need to be redistributed. And then there is the potential for climate change to alter the ratios and transfer rates (slow ocean overturning and perhaps ocean biological sink as well as affect above-ground biomass/ below-ground biomass, conversions, etc.). Lots of complications, although none really matter unless the nations of the world really get to near NetZero.
I recall a 1981 meeting that the new (then) DOE manager Fred Koomanoff of their CO2/climate program convened, and in this meeting he asked about uncertainties in the carbon budget. As I recall, George Woodwell viewed them as large because his calculations were suggesting that the deforestation source was larger or comparable to the fossil fuel source, whereas Wally Broecker, based on his conclusions from ocean chemistry analyses, said they were only 5%. Wally's comment prompted Koomanoff to then ask why the DOE program was spending 90% of its funds on a 5% uncertainty? With emissions at the time increasing a few percent per year, Wally was right that the other terms in the carbon budget would not have much effect if that trend continued--what he omitted to say, however, was that if one headed down toward zero emissions, the uncertainty he would have given would have been much larger, which is why so much was being spent on this part of the budget at that time--and despite all the research since, getting a good handle on what will happen if we rapidly or slowly get to NetZero and start up CDR while at the same time global warming heats up the various carbon pools still poses a challenge. I think we certainly have to be planning with respect to impacts and the need for CDR with the expectation that the perturbation to the CO2 concentration that has been created will remain as an important influence on the Earth's energy budget for quite some time. If for some reasons that are not now clear, the concentration does come back down fairly quickly, we can cheer mightily, but planning based on that optimistic outcome would seem to be quite risky.
Mike
John Harte
How quickly is “fairly quickly”?
<image001.png>
But.....Correlation is not causation - despite the surprisingly high correlation (Pearson's r = 0.83) between CO2 concentration and the annual fall in emissions, it is not provable that it is CO2 concentrations that are increasing the sink strength. As per the paper that John attached in his previous post, other factors such as ocean and soil fertilisation could be contributing factors, and these also correlate somewhat with CO2 emissions, as the more industrial activity the more of these factors. Interestingly, the last data points indicate that we may be at the end of this relationship, but it is too early to tell. We also do not know what the maximum capacity of the sinks are and so we may find that after a certain reduction of CO2, the rate of removal slows.However....Intergovernmental policy is nowhere near to getting to zero carbon in 2050, and instead the debate is to get to net zero carbon, in which case we will simply maintain the existing high levels of CO2And......At the current rate of ice loss in the Arctic, we will be ice free long before CO2 lowers sufficiently to have a beneficial cooling effect, and so the oceans will stagnate and the jet streams will collapse, thus likely limiting any prospect of climatically significant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Already there are alarming reports of a weakening of the Gulf Stream and release of large scale CO2 and methane from thawing permafrost.Thus, this debate becomes important because.....It fully connects SRM with CDR. You and I have both made the case to audiences in the past that SRM is important because a hot planet cannot sequester CO2 as efficiently, but I wonder if that debate is now even more starkly pronounced, such that there is a bifurcation point related to ice conditions, such that with a stable climate we have one CO2 removal regime which is capable of allowing CO2 stabilisation and allowing recovery from the damage that we have done, but once this point is passed, we transition a much slower CO2 removal rate that will take hundreds of thousands of years for stable CO2 levels to be reached as per the Vostok ice core measurement.In which case the urgency to pursue SRM and cool the planet to safe conditions (less than 0.5degC above the preindustrial baseline) is even more urgent.Kevin
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:07 AM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:
Hi Kevin--Apologies for delayed response--dealing with improving defense of our home against some increasingly drenching thunderstorms we've been having.
On your first paragraph, because there is much less land, especially in the mid-latitudes, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasonal cycle of CO2 is quite small--as an example, you can see the concentration variation in Australia athttps://theconversation.com/southern-hemisphere-joins-north-in-breaching-carbon-dioxide-milestone-59260 . I'm not an expert, but quite likely at least a bit of the small variation may be from the variation in the NH being carried into the SH--and time scale for such spread is of order 6 months. So, there is just very little seasonal variation of CO2 in SH as there is just not much land for seasonal variations in vegetation. This said, there is surely some growth going on--likely mostly steady through the year (on average), but it can't be too much as the SH average concentration is only a bit lower than the NH concentration, and this is due to most sources being in the NH and the time constant for mixing to SH (something like 6-12 months).
<image002.png>
There are a couple of things that are immediately obvious:
- There is strong correlation between time and annual CO2 removal, with a correlation coefficient of 0.84. thus potentially indicating that the planet is absorbing more CO2 in response to rising atmospheric concentrations.
- The high peaks above the trend in 1992 and 2014 coincide with the Mount Pinatubo and Mount Klyichevshoy which I understand was a significant eruption.
<image003.png>
In the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers published today, see sections D.1.4 to D.1.6 on page 40 where it mentions CDR -https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.Chris
--
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/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%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/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAE%3DUiezcG6_KoUsZMQN4jGfV1MA4EEVmmn_L_%2BHjqq3P6bok1g%40mail.gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAE%3DUiewCh1Mdi4ndVRqN1GFGNgbRMXQFbsrqrBKTma2da0chZA%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael MacCracken
Hi John--I agree that a few ppm per year for a decade would be very quick and important. I was basically thinking a century or two would be quickly.
Best, Mike
John Harte
On Aug 19, 2021, at 8:16 PM, Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com> wrote:John Harte -I appreciate your input, thanks. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future.This nonlinear system that humanity is still learning about is obviously exceptionally difficult to predict (#truestory). But I want to ask about your statement of "All bets are off if huge new sources of C to the atmosphere from massive forest fires, Arctic soil feedbacks, etc..." <- are those not already in play, albeit early stage? Or what constitutes "huge" in your view? And isn't 'huge' best understood in the context of time? Huge can mean a certain volume all at once or an equivalent volume over X number of years, yeah? I ask because one of the things I think all human beings benefit and also suffer from is a tolerance for small change in the near term while in the mid term (human time scale) seem / feel less significant but are not (frogs in pot or me getting fatter than I used to be 10 years ago...).The reason this is a point of contention for me (how we collectively, on average, view the likelihood of x, y or z events shaping out as the future unfolds is because governments and the general public (including finance people) take in these "predictions" (quasi-useful as they are) as data points which inform their decision making. And I for one am not interested in watching more scientists continue to underestimate the climate condition and trajectory as a means of escaping "alarmism" labeling or to avoid the pushback from their conservative peers, without inquiry.Speaking of tolerance... I appreciate your tolerance of me asking for clarity.Best,-Anton
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/b312eb77-aa2f-c02a-4888-9f80411a3ff5%40comcast.net.
Govindasamy Bala
Since the excess CO2 remains for many thousands of years (as expected, because even in a world with no feedbacks or biology, the CO2 pulse takes 1500 years just to circulate through the ocean and back to the atmosphere), why are some people claiming global warming will stop completely when net zero is reached?
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief 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
From: 'Greg Rau' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Date: Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:36 AM
To: Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>, "Hawkins, David" <dhaw...@nrdc.org>, Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>, Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>, geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
As for how fast air CO2 falls after anthro emissions are turned off, the paper I usually refer to is
Archer et al 2009 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206:
And AR5 had some versions of this:
AR6 no doubt repeats or updates these. The point is that it takes a long time, say 50-100kyrs, to get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels,
barring enhanced CDR.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:17 PM Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com> wrote:
John Harte -
I appreciate your input, thanks. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
This nonlinear system that humanity is still learning about is obviously exceptionally difficult to predict (#truestory). But I want to ask about your statement of "All bets are off if huge new sources of C to the atmosphere from massive forest fires, Arctic soil feedbacks, etc..." <- are those not already in play, albeit early stage? Or what constitutes "huge" in your view? And isn't 'huge' best understood in the context of time? Huge can mean a certain volume all at once or an equivalent volume over X number of years, yeah? I ask because one of the things I think all human beings benefit and also suffer from is a tolerance for small change in the near term while in the mid term (human time scale) seem / feel less significant but are not (frogs in pot or me getting fatter than I used to be 10 years ago...).
The reason this is a point of contention for me (how we collectively, on average, view the likelihood of x, y or z events shaping out as the future unfolds is because governments and the general public (including finance people) take in these "predictions" (quasi-useful as they are) as data points which inform their decision making. And I for one am not interested in watching more scientists continue to underestimate the climate condition and trajectory as a means of escaping "alarmism" labeling or to avoid the pushback from their conservative peers, without inquiry.
Speaking of tolerance... I appreciate your tolerance of me asking for clarity.
Best,
-Anton
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/b312eb77-aa2f-c02a-4888-9f80411a3ff5%40comcast.net.
--
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/CADDS%2B7eoQyYau9RCJs8408Ljt14ah_o5CknmEeveY5TToTTOvw%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 Hydrogen, Inc.
510 582 5578
--
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/CAK_B4%3D-Qy2enHaHJkteRFaX2WESgiYg%2B6zX0XPoaifjx-4s%2BiA%40mail.gmail.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 to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/F59FB3B9-E24D-44D2-8FE8-0319C8FFA801%40globalcoral.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Bala
Professor
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India
Tel: +91 80 2293 3428; +91 80 2293 2505
Fax: +91 80 2360 0865; +91 80 2293 3425
Email: gb...@iisc.ac.in; bala.gov@gmail.com
Web:http://dccc.iisc.ac.in/dr_govindasamy_bala_profile.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Tulip
Thanks very much Greg. Copy of Archer et al is attached.
This long tail of natural CO2 removal suggests up to 35% of anthropogenic CO2 (>60ppm) could stay in the air for up to two thousand years with zero emissions after ocean equilibration.
That validates my complaint about the SPM at the start of the thread. The AR6 Summary for Policymakers has sown confusion and false hope with its misleading headline statement that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." I would like to parse this ‘unless’ statement, with the hope that someone with influence on IPCC might notice the danger inherent in it. Like many points in climate policy, it is surrounded by the fog of delusion and wishful thinking.
The fallacy is that if I say “X unless Y”, that can seem to entail “If Y then not X”. But that is not true.
Saying “we can’t stop warming unless we decarbonise” seems to entail “if we decarbonise we can stop warming”. That implies a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent, through the incorrect assumption that decarbonising is enough to stop warming. Many scientists don’t assume this fallacious reasoning but many in government, media and the public do. It begs the question of whether more is needed to stop warming. And yes, as The Economist has helpfully asked in the attached comments, there may be something else needed to stop warming, geoengineering, ‘it that cannot be named’.
Why this is so important politically is well stated in the Wikipedia article: “Affirming the consequent is commonly used in rationalization, and thus appears as a coping mechanism in some people.“ Where this psychology is in play, it is irresponsible for IPCC to pander to this emotional reaction, with the popular misconception that geoengineering is not needed to stay below 1.5.
Decarbonisation is a necessary condition for stopping warming, not a sufficient condition. The problem that people ignore and rationalise away is that cutting emissions is far too small and slow to stop dangerous warming. For that we need CDR. And to have any effect on extreme weather and tipping points in this decade we need SRM. But hey, maybe governments and climate activists just don’t care about reducing extreme weather and tipping points.
Compare, “we can’t play tennis unless we have racquets”. It is also true that we need balls, players and a court, so racquets are necessary but not sufficient for tennis. But why would we ever make such a statement? Only if the context was that racquets are the only thing we are missing. If you find the racquets and get to the court and discover you have no balls, your partners will naturally query why you failed to mention that absence as well. This is like the Voldemort strategy of IPCC about geoengineering, which may seem a useful political coping mechanism, but does a profound disservice to the urgency of preparations to address climate change.
Another logical fallacy in play here is called denying the antecedent. That has the form “if P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.” This works by saying ‘if decarbonisation then cooling, therefore if no decarbonisation then no cooling’. But again that is untrue: While decarbonisation is important, optimistic scenarios cited by Climate Action Tracker suggest it can only deliver a small fraction of the carbon removal needed to stabilise the climate, as indicated on the attached Fig 2 from an unpublished paper of mine. The logic of that observation is that it might be better for the climate if governments just focus on CDR and SRM, while allowing decarbonisation to be driven by market forces.
The Archer paper notes that CO2 recovery after the PETM spike 55 million years ago took perhaps 150ky. The inference I draw from that is that Net Zero By 2050 has to mainly be delivered by CDR, not by emission reduction, if we want any hope of a trajectory and momentum back toward Holocene stability.
Robert Tulip
From: 'Greg Rau' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 21 August 2021 3:36 PM
To: Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu>; Hawkins, David <dhaw...@nrdc.org>; Kevin Lister <kevin.li...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
As for how fast air CO2 falls after anthro emissions are turned off, the paper I usually refer to is
Archer et al 2009 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206:
And AR5 had some versions of this:
AR6 no doubt repeats or updates these. The point is that it takes a long time, say 50-100kyrs, to get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels,
barring enhanced CDR.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:17 PM Anton Alferness <an...@aquaveticlabs.com> wrote:
John Harte -
I appreciate your input, thanks. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
This nonlinear system that humanity is still learning about is obviously exceptionally difficult to predict (#truestory). But I want to ask about your statement of "All bets are off if huge new sources of C to the atmosphere from massive forest fires, Arctic soil feedbacks, etc..." <- are those not already in play, albeit early stage? Or what constitutes "huge" in your view? And isn't 'huge' best understood in the context of time? Huge can mean a certain volume all at once or an equivalent volume over X number of years, yeah? I ask because one of the things I think all human beings benefit and also suffer from is a tolerance for small change in the near term while in the mid term (human time scale) seem / feel less significant but are not (frogs in pot or me getting fatter than I used to be 10 years ago...).
The reason this is a point of contention for me (how we collectively, on average, view the likelihood of x, y or z events shaping out as the future unfolds is because governments and the general public (including finance people) take in these "predictions" (quasi-useful as they are) as data points which inform their decision making. And I for one am not interested in watching more scientists continue to underestimate the climate condition and trajectory as a means of escaping "alarmism" labeling or to avoid the pushback from their conservative peers, without inquiry.
Speaking of tolerance... I appreciate your tolerance of me asking for clarity.
Best,
-Anton
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/b312eb77-aa2f-c02a-4888-9f80411a3ff5%40comcast.net.
--
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/CADDS%2B7eoQyYau9RCJs8408Ljt14ah_o5CknmEeveY5TToTTOvw%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 Hydrogen, Inc.
510 582 5578
--
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/CAK_B4%3D-Qy2enHaHJkteRFaX2WESgiYg%2B6zX0XPoaifjx-4s%2BiA%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael MacCracken
I sense that there are two different interpretations being given to "global warming"--
If we do get to Net-Zero, then, more or less near the same time, there will not be any more warming.
This does not mean that the increase in temperature since preindustrial (often also referred to as global warming) will go away, only that it won't get much bigger (well, except for long feedbacks like ice sheets deteriorating, and so one), and will hopefully start to decline.
Pretty clearly great care needs to be very precise in terms and
avoid jargon.
Mike MacCracken
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAD7fhVmd3QMh2qgOukXvCq9TfCm9_-vDX3DLihV3CmuJQd4TMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Govindasamy Bala
