Paper for AGU 2022 on planetary restoration

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone, and especially the scientists among you,

PRAG (the Planetary Restoration Action Group) has sought a comprehensive paper to explain how an understanding of the Earth System can lead to priority actions for planetary restoration, especially to refreeze the Arctic.  I had started writing such a paper for the AGU.   I have now completed version 3 of the paper which I will present to AGU 2022 in a poster session, see attached.  I would appreciate any feedback, especially on accuracy.  I am hoping to get the paper published by AGU subsequent to the conference, and this demands a high standard.

I have focussed on Arctic amplification and its effects on weather/climate extremes and sea level rise.  But I also have a section on the past role of CO2, since I believe the "climate sensitivity" value used by the IPCC is based on misleading assumptions about CO2 driving climate change over the past few million years. And I included something on the need for global warming as well as polar warming, in regard to redressing the planet's energy imbalance.

I will need some pictures and/or diagrams for the poster.  They need to be in PDF format.  I will include the latest PRAG temperature trajectories diagram which Doug Grandt has prepared.

I will need to add a host of references, but this can wait.  Of course, please suggest anything you think would help to get the message across.

Clive, I would be pleased to discuss this paper at the NOAC meeting tomorrow.

Cheers, John

[Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk]

Hi John

 

Yes, let’s discuss your paper tomorrow.

 

From a quick skim I didn’t see anything about the ice ages getting stuck during the last million years for several Milinković cycles, where they only got unstuck when it got so cold and dry at the poles that wind blown dust was able to build up on them, reducing their albedo, which initiated the next melting phase. You might not have been there when we discussed the Ellis paper that describes this.

 

As you know, today there is much discolouring of Greenland and Arctic ice from soot and other black carbon, now increasingly coming from forest fires as well as anthropogenic burning. Peter Wadhams told me it’s so thick in some places it looks like mud. This should be a clear warning of what we can expect if nothing is done to increase the Earth’s albedo, especially at the poles.

 

Clive

--
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/CACS_FxqBAiu8%3DdUv6ZJVEJqrYuBfJ-u2AZuD9Czs5MRdf-f_Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Nissen]

Hi Clive,

 

I didn’t want to raise the Ellis paper [1] as regards Milankovitch cycles and the time between the deglacial periods, which extended from 41 kyr (obliquity driven) for about 100 cycles at the beginning of the Quaternary Period to around 100 kyr (eccentricity driven) for the past 10 cycles.  It is a complex issue, not germane to my AGU paper, and their paper puts forward a novel theory which I don’t personally accept.  However your point about dust reducing albedo and helping to take the planet out of a glacial maximum is well taken.  I had left a query in my version 3 and this paragraph should be modified to include this point and Arctic feedbacks which I’d omitted.

 

From version 3

At the depth of glacial periods, oceans are cool and the CO2 level declines.  One theory is that, at around 185 ppm, the decline was sufficient to produce die-off in forests and grasslands, releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere as a negative feedback to the cooling.  The low temperature certainly results in arid conditions and more dust being blown onto the oceans, which increases productivity but possibly has a positive feedback to the cooling [?].

 

For version 4

At the depth of glacial periods, oceans are cool and the CO2 level declines.  One theory is that, at around 185 ppm, the decline was sufficient to produce die-off in forests and grasslands, releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere as a negative feedback to the cooling.  The low temperature certainly results in arid conditions and more dust being blown onto the oceans, which increases ocean productivity.  But the dust could also land on snow and ice, reducing albedo and warming the planet.  According to one theory this effect would have been strong enough to take the planet out of a glacial maximum.  It is well accepted that dust and ashes from super-volcanoes would have been sufficient to take the planet out of a snowball state.  Currently we are seeing a dangerous reduction in Arctic albedo due to dust and soot from wildfires and tundra fires which have increased due to extremes of hot and dry weather.  This is a strong positive feedback to Arctic amplification.  The release of methane and exogenous heat from thawing permafrost is another.

 

Note that I bring in permafrost feedback as well as dust feedback both of which I’d omitted from version 3.

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] Ellis and Palmer (Geoscience Frontiers, 2016)

Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

 

Highlights

• The primary forcing agent regulating ice-age glaciation is precession.

• The primary feedback system regulating ice-age glaciation is albedo.

• Albedo modulation is controlled by desertification and dust contamination of ice sheets.

• Desertification and dust productions are caused by low CO2 concentrations.

 

Abstract

We present here a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice-ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene. While the standard Milankovitch-precession theory fails to explain the long intervals between interglacials, these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima. Over the following millennia more CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric concentrations eventually reach a critical minimum of about 200 ppm, which combined with arid conditions, causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets. As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period. The proposed mechanism is simple, robust, and comprehensive in its scope, and its key elements are well supported by empirical evidence.

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/236974076.684304.1669587733415%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Thank you very much for doing such an excellent job.  I need to sort out abbreviations, weeding those which are not necessary such as GAC and perhaps NH.

Unfortunately the wrong definition of SRM in the abstract may not be changeable as it has already been published.  I don't want to complicate the text about Milankovitch cycles - it is unnecessarily complicated as it stands.

You suggest deleting the reference to the USA not wanting to refreeze the Arctic, but exploitation of the Arctic is in their recently published policy document and I want this to be highlighted.

I've started on the poster, and am extending the first para of the introduction so it stands out in the poster in bold.

The current policy of CO2 emissions reduction, accepted by the majority of nations, is inadequate to address accelerating climate change and sea level rise.  Urgent cooling intervention is required, particularly to refreeze the Arctic.

Any other ideas for making the poster stand out are welcome.

As regards diagrams, I have space for two.  I will use the PRAG temperature trajectory diagram but I would also like to have a diagram of the Hadley cell structure of atmospheric circulation, but it needs to be in PDF.

Cheers, John

P.S, I'll be joining NOAC zoom in two and a half hours time: i.e. 8 pm UK time.  The paper can be discussed then.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:13 PM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Some comments

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_Fxq9_85mBW98qkCQm%2Bggvretvapmahb7_2T_3dPQ7Boy%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Version 5 of the paper is attached.  It is the same as version 4 with mark-up removed.

I've incorporated or elaboration on most of your suggestions.  There's more on how dust can reduce snow and ice albedo.  There's more on SAI and research required.  And I've added an ending.  Here's some of the new stuff on SAI and work to be done..

Hitherto, the idea of SAI has been met with extreme scepticism by the scientific community.  Our examination of the evidence finds that SAI is potentially benign.  A realistic reassessment is urgently required, since calculations may find that SAI is the only cooling technique with enough power to refreeze the Arctic.

 

There is much scientific work still to be done with no time to lose: in assessing cooling power requirements, in validating the expected Brewer-Dobson circulation at high latitudes, in modelling to assess optimum deployment, in designing trials, in monitoring, and in ensuring early detection of side-effects.

 

Here's the conclusion:

Our vision is of the Arctic refrozen, climate change reversed, sea level rise slowed and the whole planet restored to a healthy state by 2050.  Through an understanding of Earth system operation and the efficacy of cooling technology, we believe such restoration is possible and should be demanded by the scientific community.  Such an ambitious endeavour will require unprecedented global collaboration.  But a safe, sustainable and productive planet is what everyone must want for their children and grand-children.

 

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

 

Perhaps there needs to be “Summary for policy makers” at the beginning of the paper, as IPCC have for their reports.  But for the time being, I’ll add some text to a separate window on the poster form, entitled “Significance for policy makers and scientists”.

 

For policy makers:

 

• Achieving net zero by 2050 will not prevent dangerous climate change and sea level rise – the reduction in SO2 emissions from decarbonisation will make matters worse.
• Rapid Arctic warming, not global warming, is causing the dramatic increase in extremes of weather and climate as seen in many countries including the USA.
• These extremes are escalating the damage, loss of life and economic woes around the world, far beyond anything anticipated by IPCC economic models.
• Arctic warming is also accelerating the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, with risks of sudden sea level rise from its partial collapse.
• The immediate priority for climate action must be to halt Arctic warming.
• This necessarily involves a type of cooling intervention called Solar Radiation Management (SRM) of which Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a prime example.
• SAI shows promise of benign intervention sufficiently powerful to refreeze the Arctic.
• There is no time to lose: preparation for small-scale deployment of SAI should start immediately whilst validating the method and evaluating its efficacy at full scale.  Other cooling methods should be supported as a back-up.
• Emissions reduction, even with large-scale CO2 removal (CDR), cannot provide the necessary cooling power in the necessarily short timescale.
• Industries keen to exploit a melting Arctic must be persuaded that refreezing the Arctic is in everyone’s best interest.

 

For scientists:

 

• Understanding the way the Earth System amplifies Milankovitch signals is vital for staving off climate catastrophe.
• Humanity’s huge pulse of greenhouse gases is simulating a peak Milankovitch signal and the Earth System is responding accordingly by amplifying this signal using albedo positive feedback in the Arctic.
• Arctic amplification causes climate change through a chain of effects:
• Arctic amplification reduces the temperature gradient between the Arctic and tropics, therefore reducing the energy which drives jet stream waves eastward round the planet.
• The Northern Hemisphere jet streams are meandering more to north and south, and are increasingly liable to get stuck in blocking patterns.
• This jet stream behaviour is causing a trend towards ever more extreme weather and climate.
• Arctic amplification accelerates sea level rise:
• The rapid Arctic warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, contributing significantly to sea level rise.
• The ice sheet is showing signs of disintegration which could cause sudden collapse.
• Rapid changes in climate and sea level have occurred in the past and would be catastrophic for humanity today.
• To stave off catastrophe, the Arctic needs to be quickly refrozen.
• SAI can be applied quickly, cheaply and benignly to refreeze the Arctic.
• Emissions reduction and CDR, though desirable for long-term climate stability, cannot possibly provide the required cooling power on the required timescale.

 

Cheers, John

 

[Rebecca personal em]

Hello John, and everyone, 

The below summary is excellent, also the paper, thank you. 

I’m not a scientist, but I understand that marine cloud brightening is a different technology to stratospheric aerosol injection - and also different in side effects and cost. So, less controversial.  If relevant, can that be included without complicating things? 

I really do think this is an excellent summary and will await guidance before circulating. 

Best wishes to all,

Rebecca Bishop

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/CACS_Fxq%3DRDUuNNAbaazhdq-LnGN_7mwBgoVhmzpNpvraW%2BDY7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Rebecca,

SRM is often assumed to mean SAI.  SRM has been attacked as needless interference with the climate system, with particular vehemence from climate change deniers or from those who believed that climate change was not a big deal and would not impact them personally.  There were even people who described climate alarmism as porn!  MCB was just as bad as SAI for them.

Now that the climate crisis is recognised as a real threat to humanity, not just to the poorer countries, there may come a recognition that powerful SRM has to be accepted, so there needs to be a decent risk assessment.  The biggest risks from MCB and SAI are not from side-effects but that the method may not be sufficiently scalable to meet the cooling requirements.  I claim that this risk is much higher for MCB than for SAI.  But we do not have definitive figures about the cooling requirements for refreezing the Arctic.

As for side-effects, MCB may have side-effects which we don't know because we've never done full-scale trials.  With SAI it is different, because we've observed what happens with the SAI done by volcanoes.  We've seen ozone depletion from Pinatubo; however ozone depletion can be minimised (if not eliminated) by injection at suitably high latitude in late spring and early summer.  With each method modelling can be done to determine particular effects and avoid bad outcomes, and then monitoring can check.  Implementation would be ramped up, with satellite monitoring to check each stage.  Only if we've left the SRM so late that we have to start at full strength is there a danger - but this danger is of our own making!

As for cost, this is not really an issue since both methods are extraordinarily cheap in comparison to what they are achieving, however you measure this.

I would advocate both methods in parallel: they can work independently.  But SAI is more ready to deploy than MCB, so it is naturally the method to start with.

Cheers, John

[Douglas Grandt]

John, Rebecca et al.

Bill McKibben’s recent New Yorker 5,600+ word tome and Michael Mann’s tweet (followed by Bill’s Retweet and a thread of expressions of mutual admiration, male bonding, and brotherhood) presented an opportunity to challenge them in a few replies and RTs of my own, the first one now having had 133 view of exactly the audience intended (Bill, Mike and a handful of  their followers)

https://twitter.com/doug350/status/1595685874846650370?s=46&t=WgdSDMJOwVQEH5UXPakmpw

OMG‼️ Dr. Mann just now blocked me‼️

Separately, pursuant to Will Lockett’s piece Bit.ly/Lockett1Dec22, I just now posted another reply to Mann & McKibben

Twitter URLs posted on my FB page https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0fiRKVjH4zHVvE9DsJKZ5pHPrqPbwgE3BMgbszkk7ozVn6taHipKTSDN52wEAytKKl&id=589997708&mibextid=qC1gEa

• twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1595529836470099975?s=46&t=6SvNhFiUPmxfq9WvBmkWKA

• twitter.com/doug350/status/1599185157613039617?s=46&t=6SvNhFiUPmxfq9WvBmkWKA

• twitter.com/doug350/status/1599186616156794880?s=46&t=6SvNhFiUPmxfq9WvBmkWKA

Because I’m fatigued typing on my phone with one fat finger … 

Cheers,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 3, 2022, at 6:20 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxq0W8QnrOyshJuWNS55jn%3DzcD_y6Hg7nzZuj1%3DL4R-pMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

John

 

Here is a theme you might like to mention in your AGU summary – net zero heating.

 

Net zero heating is a better goal for climate stability than net zero emissions.  A stable climate is one where cooling balances heating, against the primary measure of watts per square metre of radiative forcing.

 

Albedo Enhancement provides far quicker, easier, cheaper and safer cooling than GHG reduction.  Therefore the cooling side of the net zero heating ledger is better achieved through a focus on increasing planetary radiation of heat and light back to space.  Until we achieve net zero heating as a primary objective of climate policy, the planet faces massive risk of climate instability.  A focus on GHGs is simply too slow, risky and expensive to deliver NZH.

 

Sustaining net zero heating requires ongoing regulation and management of the planetary climate.  As a goal, net zero heating against the preindustrial Holocene base has the advantage over net zero emissions of producing Earth System Stability with our current sea level, while also mitigating all the climate tipping points now in operation.

 

Understanding the relative scale and timing of optimal climate actions requires that we put albedo first, recognising that carbon-based methods are too small, slow and contested to have major cooling impact, whereas albedo-based methods can readily achieve net zero heating within this century.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/8DEF00EC-18F7-4A75-A4B4-546B52B09A7B%40gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

2022 Arctic sea ice minimum, compared to average 1980-2010.

Clear picture of albedo loss.  All the blue inside the yellow line used to be white.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3213/2022-arctic-summer-sea-ice-tied-for-10th-lowest-on-record/

 

Robert Tulip

[peterlin...@gmail.com]

It’s perhaps not as obvious from the graphic, but the NASA figures indicate that although “only” the 10^th lowest area, this summer’s coverage has fallen to 75% of the average for the 30 years to 2010. A reduction of 25% in 12 years is striking – and given the pre-1980 warming, this 30 year average is presumably a smaller area of coverage than a century ago.

 

Peter

--

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/01cd01d9078a%2487f1c3b0%2497d54b10%24%40rtulip.net.

[peterlin...@gmail.com]

Robert

I agree that Net Zero Heating is a concept and catch phrase that could be a very useful alternative to the ubiquitous Net Zero Emissions. Its meaning is clear and it logically leads to the question of how it might be achieved – and that GHG reduction is only one of a suite of essential strategies.  And it seems to me that the term Albedo-Based Cooling would follow as a very clear response once people get their heads around Net Zero Heating.

 

Peter

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/00c801d90781%248fff7740%24affe65c0%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

I am deliberately focussing on the Arctic because that is where emergency action is most urgently needed. We have most of the fossil fuel industry and some governments (including the US government) against us at present; so they need to be persuaded that it is in everyone's best interest to refreeze the Arctic, whilst there is still a chance to do it with SAI: tipping points could become points of no return.and catastrophic climate change and sea level rise inevitable.

The media, climate activists, the Association of Small Island States (OASIS), indigenous peoples of the Arctic, and the Global South all need to buy into this.  They all seem totally unaware of the Arctic danger and how SRM could be deployed in a totally benign fashion to refreeze the Arctic.  Climate scientists may be aware, but they've not come out into the open, preferring to follow the IPCC strategy of emissions reduction plus adaptation which is the road to ruination for humanity.  Today's MEER talk will no doubt explain how this strategy is driven by neoclassical economists.

Cheers, John

 .

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi Peter L.,

Peter Wadhams estimates that albedo loss since 1980 amounts to a climate forcing of around 1.0 W/m2 globally averaged, assuming as much contribution from snow retreat as sea ice retreat.  This PNAS paper [1] expresses albedo loss in % per decade of 1.5 with the satellite data, App-x, see figure 1.  But this is just over the Arctic.  This percentage needs to be translated to W/m2 in order to determine the climate forcing.

The paper also suggests that loss of albedo through black carbon and dust is not a significant factor, though this may have changed with the increase in wildfires and tundra fires.  And the paper suggests the albedo loss from snow is greater than from sea ice.

The forcing is an important factor for knowing how much SRM cooling might be required for refreezing the Arctic.  It might even rule out MCB as having insufficient cooling power at its maximum possible strength. 

Cheers, John

[1] Zhang et al. 2019

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1915258116

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/026a01d90796%243868a050%24a939e0f0%24%40gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Doug,

Sorry to hear that you've been blocked.  I hope my paper for AGU won't be blocked from being published!

The MEER talk by Steve Keen is relevant to my paper, because he shows that damage from climate change has been grossly underestimated [1].  His talk begins in quarter of an hour, see MEER posts.

Cheers, John

[1]

Forecasts by economists of the economic damage from climate change have been notably sanguine, compared to warnings by scientists about damage to the biosphere. This is because economists made their own predictions of damages, using three spurious methods: assuming that about 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change, because it happens indoors; using the relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time; and using surveys that diluted extreme warnings from scientists with optimistic expectations from economists.

 

Nordhaus has misrepresented the scientific literature to justify using a smooth function to describe the damage to GDP from climate change. Correcting for these errors makes it feasible that the economic damages from climate change are at least an order of magnitude worse than forecast by economists, and may be so great as to threaten the survival of human civilization.

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Attached is a revised version 2 of the "Significance for policy makers and scientists", to be inserted into a window of my AGU poster, submitted on behalf of PRAG.

I have added bullet points concerning more general cooling, including Robert's suggestion to mention "Net zero heating".  Together with getting CO2e down below the 1980 level it should be possible to restore the planet to a safe, sustainable and productive state by 2050.

Cheers, John

[PR CARTER]

That's well composed John

There is now an emgergency imperative to cool the Arctic immedaitely to prevent disastrous heating to Europe in particular and N.hemisphere in general  

Without Arctic cooling we lose NH food productivity (as we were both warning of years ago)

Oct 2022 N. Hemsphere was 1.58C

This is (now obviously) the large increasing Arctic amplification (sea ice & snow) effect on the Northern hemisphere especially western Europe (Barents Sea), operant from June.

In Oct the greatest warming regions were West Euope and Siberia 

Furthermore governments have it clear there will be NO decline of fossil fuel emissions- only increase, which is a planet killer

Best regards

Keep pushing

Peter

---

From: "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Tulip" <rob...@rtulip.net>
Cc: "Planetary Restoration" <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, "'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings" <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>, "healthy-planet-action-coalition" <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, "Peter Wadhams" <peterw...@gmail.com>, "Clive Elsworth" <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, "Shaun Fitzgerald" <sd...@cam.ac.uk>, "Gernot Wagner" <Ger...@gwagner.com>, "Douglas MacMartin" <dgm...@cornell.edu>, "Rafe Pomerance" <rafe.po...@gmail.com>, "Graeme Taylor" <gta...@bestfutures.org>, "Ye Tao" <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 2:23:54 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_FxpAKiJsyNEn5eCrTQt4MMwuBngRFviPT9oLKprK1C3o7A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Director Climate Emergency Institute
IPCC expert reviewer
Co-author2018 Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi John

 

Planetary insolation averages 341 w/m² of which about 100 w/m²  is reflected back to space, due to planetary albedo of 0.3 (source). 

 

That means at planetary scale the percentage loss of albedo equals the loss in watts per square metre.

 

The chart below shows planetary albedo loss trend of 0.6 w/m² (0.6%) this century from Earthshine data, and 1.4 w/m² (1.4%) from satellite data (CERES). (source)

Pistone et al found that the Arctic planetary albedo decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m² of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO₂ during this period.

 

Robert

 

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi John

Great summary.

Here are my suggestions.

Robert

 

From: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen

Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2022 9:24 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_FxpAKiJsyNEn5eCrTQt4MMwuBngRFviPT9oLKprK1C3o7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

Robert and John,

Glad to see the Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine paper (Bit.ly/AGU29Aug21) being used in this effort, but I am unclear as to whether it is additive to or included in the conventional wisdom of GHG GWF.

The following excerpt from section 3.3 Earthshine-CERES Comparison led me to conclude simply that there is a difference in the measurements, but that the absolute quantities are both “significant” with different levels of confidence (I may be misinterpreting the meaning of “level”).

With the current datasets, it is striking how well the inter-annual earthshine anomalies agree with those from CERES, and that both show a downturn in the most recent years, even though they cover slightly different parts of the Earth. For the earthshine data, the albedo has decreased by about 0.5 

[Douglas Grandt]

Errata - please excuse the formatting issue which I’ve recast eliminating the embedded images [W/m2] and [5 x 10^-5]. 

With the current datasets, it is striking how well the inter-annual earthshine anomalies agree with those from CERES, and that both show a downturn in the most recent years, even though they cover slightly different parts of the Earth. For the earthshine data, the albedo has decreased by about 0.5 W/m2, and the decrease is significant (at the 5 x 10^-5 level), while for CERES data, 2001–2017, the decrease of about 1.5 W/m2 is significant at the level of 0.06.

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 7, 2022, at 3:30 PM, 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Robert and John,

Glad to see the Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine paper (Bit.ly/AGU29Aug21) being used in this effort, but I am unclear as to whether it is additive to or included in the conventional wisdom of GHG GWF.

The following excerpt from section 3.3 Earthshine-CERES Comparison led me to conclude simply that there is a difference in the measurements, but that the absolute quantities are both “significant” with different levels of confidence (I may be misinterpreting the meaning of “level”).

With the current datasets, it is striking how well the inter-annual earthshine anomalies agree with those from CERES, and that both show a downturn in the most recent years, even though they cover slightly different parts of the Earth. For the earthshine data, the albedo has decreased by about 0.5 W/m2, and the decrease is significant (at the 5 x 10^-5 level), while for CERES data, 2001–2017, the decrease of about 1.5 W/m2 is significant at the level of 0.06. 

Frankly, I don’t know how to restate that in simple English (laymen’s terms). We need a scientist to weigh in.

My only suggestion was that increasing albedo by the amount it has been reduced should be a no-brainer argument for Solar Radiation Management [of some kind] in the face of the wide spread anti-geoengineering [emotional] sentiment.

That was the intended message to my Ulster County (New York) audience when I present the May Day series of slides on this.

I think John could justifiably insert a bullet point expressing restoration of albedo as an imperative using the paper as a reference.  It seems to this layman that reducing fossil fuel combustion through decarbonization will further reduce albedo enhancing aerosols, and this should be in future deliberations.

Best,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 7, 2022, at 7:52 AM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



Hi John

 

Planetary insolation averages 341 w/m² of which about 100 w/m²  is reflected back to space, due to planetary albedo of 0.3 (source). 

 

That means at planetary scale the percentage loss of albedo equals the loss in watts per square metre.

 

The chart below shows planetary albedo loss trend of 0.6 w/m² (0.6%) this century from Earthshine data, and 1.4 w/m² (1.4%) from satellite data (CERES). (source)

Pistone et al found that the Arctic planetary albedo decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m² of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO₂ during this period.

 

Robert

 

 

From: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2022 5:29 AM
To: peterlin...@gmail.com
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>; Gernot Wagner <Ger...@gwagner.com>; Rafe Pomerance <rafe.po...@gmail.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [prag] Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2022

 

Hi Peter L.,

 

Peter Wadhams estimates that albedo loss since 1980 amounts to a climate forcing of around 1.0 W/m2 globally averaged, assuming as much contribution from snow retreat as sea ice retreat.  This PNAS paper [1] expresses albedo loss in % per decade of 1.5 with the satellite data, App-x, see figure 1.  But this is just over the Arctic.  This percentage needs to be translated to W/m2 in order to determine the climate forcing.

 

The paper also suggests that loss of albedo through black carbon and dust is not a significant factor, though this may have changed with the increase in wildfires and tundra fires.  And the paper suggests the albedo loss from snow is greater than from sea ice.

 

The forcing is an important factor for knowing how much SRM cooling might be required for refreezing the Arctic.  It might even rule out MCB as having insufficient cooling power at its maximum possible strength. 

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] Zhang et al. 2019

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1915258116

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 4:09 AM <peterlin...@gmail.com> wrote:

It’s perhaps not as obvious from the graphic, but the NASA figures indicate that although “only” the 10^th lowest area, this summer’s coverage has fallen to 75% of the average for the 30 years to 2010. A reduction of 25% in 12 years is striking – and given the pre-1980 warming, this 30 year average is presumably a smaller area of coverage than a century ago.

 

Peter

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Sunday, 4 December 2022 1:46 PM
To: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [prag] Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2022

 

2022 Arctic sea ice minimum, compared to average 1980-2010.

Clear picture of albedo loss.  All the blue inside the yellow line used to be white.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3213/2022-arctic-summer-sea-ice-tied-for-10th-lowest-on-record/

 

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/01cd01d9078a%2487f1c3b0%2497d54b10%24%40rtulip.net.

--
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/026a01d90796%243868a050%24a939e0f0%24%40gmail.com.

--
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/058f01d90a3a%24c48c72e0%244da558a0%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for many ideas to improve the "significance" document.  I marked them up in version 3.  Version 4 has the mark-up removed, see attached.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Idea for a Haiku with its (5,7,5) syllable structure:

    Reverse climate change

Ever worse weather extremes

    Refreeze the Arctic!

Cheers, John

[Rebecca Bishop]

Hello John and all,

Thanks for the great work summarising things for the AGU (American Geophysical Union) conference soon.

On a light note, I've added one word / syllable to John's Haiku:

 Reverse climate change

Else ever worse weather extremes

    Refreeze the Arctic!

On a more serious note, John, I could not see in either the policy or scientific summary any comment on the plan to minimise the effects of SAI by doing it at a certain time of year, so it can disperse, and minimise adverse impacts on nations close to the arctic.

I've seen this in one of the threads, and I think it should be included, which I have marked up in the attached edit to v4.

Also, on the poster in this thread I found an acronym (NOAA) which wasn't clear, and also a typo below 20000, when it should be 2000.

Best wishes to all,

Rebecca Bishop

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/CACS_FxpfyeYS3srMPu0%2BZYvrj-C-bE4yUNcSBEBTaxB6Oubqig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ye Tao]

WALTER - Animated Short Film

[John Nissen]

Hi Mike,

I hope you approve of the scientific case we are making for refreezing the Arctic as a top priority for climate action.

Re haiku, try this, keeping the 5,7,5 structure and with a crucial colon which implies fulfilment (of the reversal in this case):

   Reverse climate change

As weather extremes worsen:

     Refreeze the Arctic

The "as" could mean "while" or "because", both of which are appropriate; so I don't think the slight ambiguity matters.

As for Rebecca's comment on SAI, the scientists need to reassure the public and policy makers that SAI, injected at high latitude in late spring and early summer, has minimal risks from ozone depletion and winter warming: the main scientific concerns.  With its blanket cooling effect, the only noticeable thing for people below will be slightly lower temperatures, slightly brighter sunsets and slightly less skin cancer.  The restoration of sea ice will have major benefits for wildlife and the way of life for indigenous people.

Cheers, John

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:02 PM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Just to note that it needs punctuation at the end of line 2 or it reads as if extreme weather will refreeze the Arctic.

Mike

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CA%2BKfrk2UFrr1B-dwUa5JpPnUM%2Bsab%3DxG7tSm6bTDt5y0Th3OkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

John and Rebecca,

As a haiku enthusiast, I approve!

And a wise addition to the AGU narrative.

Cheers,

Doug

On Dec 8, 2022, at 10:02 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mike,

I hope you approve of the scientific case we are making for refreezing the Arctic as a top priority for climate action.

Re haiku, try this, keeping the 5,7,5 structure and with a crucial colon which implies fulfilment (of the reversal in this case):

   Reverse climate change

As weather extremes worsen:

     Refreeze the Arctic

The "as" could mean "while" or "because", both of which are appropriate; so I don't think the slight ambiguity matters.

As for Rebecca's comment on SAI, the scientists need to reassure the public and policy makers that SAI, injected at high latitude in late spring and early summer, has minimal risks from ozone depletion and winter warming: the main scientific concerns.  With its blanket cooling effect, the only noticeable thing for people below will be slightly lower temperatures, slightly brighter sunsets and slightly less skin cancer.  The restoration of sea ice will have major benefits for wildlife and the way of life for indigenous people.

Cheers, John

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:02 PM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Just to note that it needs punctuation at the end of line 2 or it reads as if extreme weather will refreeze the Arctic.

Mike

On 12/8/22 1:13 AM, Rebecca Bishop wrote:

Hello John and all,

Thanks for the great work summarising things for the AGU (American Geophysical Union) conference soon.

On a light note, I've added one word / syllable to John's Haiku:

 Reverse climate change

Else ever worse weather extremes

    Refreeze the Arctic!

On a more serious note, John, I could not see in either the policy or scientific summary any comment on the plan to minimise the effects of SAI by doing it at a certain time of year, so it can disperse, and minimise adverse impacts on nations close to the arctic.

I've seen this in one of the threads, and I think it should be included, which I have marked up in the attached edit to v4.

Also, on the poster in this thread I found an acronym (NOAA) which wasn't clear, and also a typo below 20000, when it should be 2000.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxq7o06hiqBowbB8RfdXKwzXM7hLHEEXVrG4ejL87uxKMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Thanks everyone for the many comments received.  Here attached is an update of the significance document. I will try to update the AGU poster this evening.  The conference proper starts tomorrow!

I am leaving the main document, i.e. the "paper for AGU 2022" unchanged at version 5, see attached.  Please put both documents on the PRAG website.

Thanks, John

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi John

 

I have uploaded both documents at https://planetaryrestoration.net/articles-1

 

Here are the file links

• PRAG AGU 2022 Paper John Nissen
• Significance for AGU

 

Regards

Robert