Re: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Brilliant!  I particularly like your pointed comment about effective action:

The call “to advance safe, fair, inclusive, and equitable action” leaves out the critical point that climate action must be effective.  The high risk is that political ideology will continue to distort research priorities so that actions that don’t cool the planet (e.g. electric cars) will get priority over actions that do cool the planet.  The “Climate Justice” agenda that action must be fair, inclusive and equitable is essential, but without saying that action must be effective all these possible benefits will be missed.  Restoring and repairing the climate is the indispensable foundation for progress toward social justice.

The lack of effective action proposed by AGU is a terrible condemnation for young people today; whereas a proposal for effective action would give them hope.

But...

The AGU needs to accept the scientific reality that the Earth System is accelerating away from the Holocene norms that our civilisation relies on.  This acceleration is driven by rapid Arctic warming.  As you well know, the whole emphasis of my "Paper for AGU 2022" and the poster containing that paper being presented next week, is that refreezing the Arctic must be the top priority for action.  It is not just to slow sea level rise, as you mention, it is to avoid various catastrophes which could be produced by tipping points: a sudden collapse of Greenland glaciers;; a mutual collapse of some Antarctic glaciers; a sudden change in atmospheric circulation caused by further jet-stream disruption; a sudden increase in climate forcing due to a multi-megaton outburst of methane from permafrost; and a further decline in the AMOC which is critical to global ocean circulation and oxygenation.

We don't know how soon these catastrophes could occur, but any one of these tipping points could become a point of no return, when no amount of cooling intervention could prevent its associated catastrophe.  So cooling intervention could not be more urgent.

This is looking on the prevention side.  On the positive side, refreezing the Arctic can help to reverse climate change by stabilising/normalising jet stream behaviour.  It can slow methane release from permafrost.  It can halt AMOC decline.  It can restore the Arctic ecosystem.  And, as you say, it can slow sea level rise.

This is what needs to be argued with the AGU before they publish.  I hope Leslie can help us.  It would be fantastic to get the AGU on our side and certainly worth a try!  They have a reputation for good science at stake.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:50 AM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Hi Herb and all

 

I am not a member of AGU, but I would like to share some comments here as their position statement is important and influential.

 

Overall, the proposed AGU support for research on methods to increase albedo is a highly welcome contribution to the most important existential question for our planetary future, how best to respond to climate change.  However, the draft statement displays confusion and negativity that does much to remove the clarity and purpose of its overall support, reflecting widely held political assumptions.  My main concern is that the Introduction presents a partisan argument that excludes what may prove the only real solution, a Grand Bargain with the fossil fuel industry to allow ongoing emissions in exchange for climate stabilisation.

 

The AGU draft starts off with the false and unscientific claim that “Climate intervention (CI) measures cannot substitute for deep cuts in emissions or the need for adaptation. “ 

 

This non-substitution claim is a religious and political mantra designed to reinforce social polarisation and gain political backing, not a science-based observation.  The fact is, CI measures CAN substitute for emission reduction in the short term.  It would be perfectly possible to scale GHG removal over coming decades to larger than current emissions and allow emissions to continue, enabling a slower decarbonisation of the economy.  Similarly, it is possible to scale up solar geoengineering to achieve net zero heating while emissions continue.  Those are both simple examples of substitution that refute the AGU opening line.  Arguments against CI such as ocean acidification and side effects do not recognise the orders of magnitude of the physical forces involved in climate change, failing to accept that the risks of not proceeding with CI research are far worse than the risks and benefits of proceeding.

 

The AGU draft claim that CI cannot substitute for climate adaptation is ignorant, immoral and dangerous.  It means, for example, that refreezing the Arctic to slow sea level rise cannot substitute for turning hundreds of millions of people into climate refugees and destroying beaches, ports and wetlands as we ‘adapt’ to rising sea level.  It means that deploying Marine Cloud Brightening to cool the Atlantic cannot substitute for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on ‘adapting’ to worsening hurricanes.  Of course CI must be a substitute for adaptation to limit the scale and trauma of adaptation needed.  This non-substitution argument is a recipe for failing to mobilise CI as fast as possible. We need CI as a far superior substitute to the harms of ongoing warming. 

 

The non-substitution argument is designed to protect government funding for emission cuts.  However, if that funding rests on the false premise that emission cuts alone can cool the planet, it is not fit for purpose and needs to switch focus to something that actually can cool the planet, effective climate intervention through albedo enhancement.

 

I am using harsh language here because I am sick of seeing this echo chamber language about substitution that allows wasting of precious time needed for urgent deployment of methods to enhance planetary albedo.  The only reasoned criticisms I have seen of my view are political, that the non-substitution argument is popular on the left.  With due respect, the AGU should stick to scientific analysis rather than second-guessing the popularity of its views, especially when these views are blatantly delusional and wrong.

 

The thinking behind this AGU statement against substitution rests on primitive tribal loyalty, not analysis of evidence.  They are saying the emotional hatred of fossil fuels within their tribe is so strong they are willing to junk the scientific method and instead support a baseless and highly partisan political attack, or otherwise their friends might shun them.  AGU should not support such contentious and harmful political arguments that muddy the clear view needed on causes and responses for mitigating climate change. 

 

The draft continues to analyse replacement in its section headed “Opportunities & Challenges”.  But after repeating the opening political assertion, the document doesn’t say anything to justify it (because they can’t). Instead, it veers to the non-sequitur that “even stopping GHG emissions now could leave Earth at levels of warming many would consider unacceptable.”  Far from supporting the non-substitution argument, that actually undermines it.  We all know it is not possible to stop emissions now.  But this fanciful counterfactual scenario of a sudden end to combustion actually supports the call for direct cooling to augment emission reduction as an immediate substitute strategy.  Noting that we are already at an “unacceptable level of warming” should lead to recognition that solar geoengineering is the only thing that can return the planet to an acceptable temperature, and that even accelerated emission cuts would be marginal to warming for many decades.  The implication that AGU should mention here is that in fact cutting emissions cannot substitute for direct cooling as a way to stabilise and repair the climate.

 

The section on Needed Actions is excellent, but leaves out three crucial points, that business must be included, research must be effective, and cooperative governance of geoengineering will protect and enhance biodiversity, security, stability and prosperity.

 

The call for “dialogue that includes and engages communities and the broader public” should be expanded to include dialogue with industry stakeholders.  The fossil fuel industry can either block or enable this work.  Excluding them will dangerously delay progress.  They have the skills, resources and contacts to ensure research proceeds quickly.  These assets must be mobilised in partnership, not rejected.

 

The call “to advance safe, fair, inclusive, and equitable action” leaves out the critical point that climate action must be effective.  The high risk is that political ideology will continue to distort research priorities so that actions that don’t cool the planet (eg electric cars) will get priority over actions that do cool the planet.  The “Climate Justice” agenda that action must be fair, inclusive and equitable is essential, but without saying that action must be effective all these possible benefits will be missed.  Restoring and repairing the climate is the indispensable foundation for progress toward social justice.

 

Effective cooling can enable the ongoing economic prosperity needed to protect and enhance biodiversity, stability and security.  Without this foundation, there is no prospect for inclusion, justice and equity.  Too-rapid decarbonisation presents massive risks of economic collapse and resulting conflict and poverty. Cutting emissions needs to be placed within a strategic vision of a critical engineering path from our current crisis to a sustainable future.  That path has to include the need for energy security, which can only be delivered through a gradual shift to renewable sources alongside ongoing emissions. On biodiversity, problems such as poleward drift, coral bleaching and sea level rise present major extinction threats, which can only be forestalled by immediate cooling action.

 

International cooperation and public private partnership are needed for direct climate cooling through albedo enhancement.  Such collaboration would offer the most plausible path to support ongoing world peace and security, for example by helping Russia and China to shift their diplomatic focus from confrontation to cooperation, and bringing the fossil economy into the climate action tent.   These benefits for world peace, together with the need to slow climate tipping points, significantly and massively outweigh the risks of delay.

 

The HPAC call for a climate triad to cool, remove and reduce as equal priorities presents a workable climate strategy.  Achieving that equality requires acceptance that action to cool the climate and remove GHGs does in fact present an effective substitute for current thinking on accelerating emission reduction and adaptation.  Cutting emissions should continue where it makes economic and ecological and environmental sense, without pretending it could be enough to slow climate change.

 

The AGU draft statement well articulates the current informed scientific consensus on the urgent need to advance from the complacent IPCC focus on emission reduction alone, and, by supporting planetary brightening, from the IPCC recognition of the need to remove greenhouse gases. It effectively rebuts the ignorant voices that oppose cooling research, and also refutes the alleged ‘Net Zero Commitment’ that imagines achieving net zero emissions would be enough for climate stability.  As such the AGU position is highly important and welcome as an advance on previous prevailing views.   Yet solving the climate emergency will need more – a radical paradigm shift in how our species inhabits and manages our planet, to regulate the atmosphere to produce optimal conditions for flourishing.  This shift to a brighter planet will need gradual incremental measures that respect the inertia and momentum of the world economy with its deep conservative entrenchment of fossil fuels.  Respecting and engaging the fossil economy has to abandon the ideological belief that direct cooling cannot replace faster emission cuts. Part of the research agenda should include the ethical debate on whether a slower energy transition, backed by climate intervention, would be a good approach. 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H simmens
Sent: Friday, 9 December 2022 5:32 AM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Fwd: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

 

You will find the American Geophysical Union draft position statement on Climate Intervention below. I encourage HPAC participants to review this statement and if you an AGU member to submit your comments by January 9th. 

 

This is an important opportunity to shape AGU intervention policy to be consistent with HPAC principles. 

 

This page describes the cost and benefits of an AGU membership:

 

 https://www.agu.org/membership

 

I was surprised to see that a full year membership is only $50 and $20 for a student. 

 

I would encourage everyone who has a comment on the statement - whether you are or will become a member or not - to share it with the group. 

 

Any AGU veterans or others who wish to add to what I have written please do so. 

 

Thanks,

 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimens

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniele Visioni <daniele...@gmail.com>
Date: December 8, 2022 at 1:03:09 PM EST
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention
Reply-To: daniele...@gmail.com

Dear all, 

Please find below a link to the new Draft position statement on Climate Intervention by AGU, to which I contributed to for this year.

 

Draft Position Statement on Climate Intervention agu.org

 

Comments are open to all AGU members until January 9th, after which we will take them into consideration for a final draft to be sent to the AGU Council and Board for final approval.

 

At the link you’ll also see the differences between the new proposed one, and the previous one from 2018.

 

Best,

 

Daniele

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Daniele Visioni, PhD
Research Associate
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
US phone: (607)-280-0525
e-mail: daniele...@cornell.edu
website: https://dan-visioni.github.io/
Check out our latest published papers:
Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202230119
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

 

 

--
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/D4AFE3C5-0F41-4472-989F-E576501D42A5%40gmail.com.

--
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/33482326-7D3F-4720-A51A-821ADE05A343%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/06d501d90b70%24aac17c70%2400447550%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Nissen]

Hi Clive and Robert,

I don't think superstition, myth or politics explains the situation. 

99% of climate activists believe that reducing emissions is the "solution" and the only valid solution to climate change.  This is presented to them as a scientific truth by the IPCC.  Little do they know that the IPCC has been effectively hijacked by the fossil fuel industry in cohorts with neoclassical economists who belittle the effects of climate change, having originally denied its existence.  I am grateful to Kyle for pointing this out; and we heard from Steve Keen how wrong the neoclassical economists can be in their reasoning or lack of it.

Thus the IPCC uses Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to assess costs/damage based on this totally false idea of the damage that can be done by global warming and climate change.  Moreover people's lives and livelihoods in poor countries and low-lying places are left out of the equation.

The critical thing is that appropriate action is taken with due urgency.  That means getting people to focus on the Arctic and how to refreeze it quickly.  What happens with emissions reduction, CDR and methane removal (or better suppression) really doesn't matter in the short term.  If we don't refreeze the Arctic, all hell will be let loose, and the focus will be on how to avoid mass starvation and/or world war 3.  Arctic meltdown is a massive security risk for the world.

We've got to inform influential bodies, like the AGU, that there is sound science behind our call to refreeze the Arctic ASAP, whatever IPCC says.  And SAI has to be a front runner for doing the job - it's nothing to be scared about.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 4:21 PM Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

Another great response Robert.

 

The only thing I see differently is the religious/political angle. To me, the idea that the only thing that can save the planet is reducing emissions is a modern-day superstition.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/11ed01d90bea%24462912d0%24d27b3870%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[H simmens]

John and others,

For the sake of argument assuming SAI is fit for purpose, how long would it take - best case and ‘realistic’ case -  to deploy SAI at scale even if done at subpolar latitudes, and at lower altitudes?

I am by no means familiar with the literature addressing this issue, but I present the 9/2022  paper coauthored by among others Wake Smith, Doug MacMartin, and Daniele Visoni that looks closely at that scenario: (ironically, it was Daniele who posted the AGU draft statement that I circulated.) 

From the conclusion:

“The design and build-out of both the flight and ground infrastructure would require more than a decade, such that a large subpolar SAI program is not a feasible emergency response to acute climate stress.”

Does the world have in excess of a decade (decision making and governance would presumably need to be added to this time period) before deploying SAI or would SAI effectiveness be too little too late at that point? Can that question be authoritatively answered? 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimens

On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:12 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



Only just got to look at the AGU draft.  Where's the sense of urgency?

Rebranding geoengineering as 'climate intervention' is telling.  'Geoengineering' is a tainted term, so let's repeat the same messages that have in circulation since the 2009 Royal Society Report (one of the AGU's referenced documents).   There's nothing new here.  And that's the tragedy because the situation now is not what it was in 2009.  Then emissions abatement was still expected to be sufficient.  Then by 2014 it was recognised that it wouldn't be so some CDR was added, but only half-heartedly.  Now in 2022 we're adding albedo management, but again, only half-heartedly. 

The message should be that emissions abatement is no longer sufficient.  CDR will help but even combined with aggressive emissions abatement will take too long to impact surface temperature.  But both rapid and deep emissions abatement and CDR remain necessary for the medium to long term restoration of the earth's energy imbalance.  So, if you really want to avoid some serious climate tipping points, albedo enhancement (AE as I now like to call it) is essential.  AE isn't optional, it's necessary.  Necessity, as has long been known, is the mother of invention.  We'd better to some serious AE invention in very short order if we are to stand any chance of saving most of what we currently call human civilisation.

That's urgency.  All the rest is waffle.

It is also worth registering that the slower we are in doing the AE research in a socially responsible manner, the greater the likelihood that later, it'll be done in haste with poor preparation and scant concern for its equity impact.  History suggests that that's most likely what will happen, but by the time it does, it'll be too late to save most of what we now imagine must be saved.

Regards

Robert

On 09/12/2022 20:10, Ye Tao wrote:

Superstition is what Peter Fiekowsky wrote, "that we can restore preindustrial CO2 in 2-3 decades and methane in one decade".

That 99% of climate activists and climate scientists believe that reducing emissions is the "solution" are tragedies, respectively, of western secondary education and the siloization of post-secondary science education.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqOPcGJXWwve8MoQL5nZaeL_O98zDED4ftPOFj%2BAULeDg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/e9209fc6-b4e3-958f-1c21-8e5e1066e377%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/12f05d3d-eee8-c968-4144-d3fbc92e3827%40gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks for all the comments.  It would be interesting to think about how to get this discussion before a broader audience.

 

I would like to see the AGU statement include the following point.

 

The only action that could mitigate warming in this decade is to brighten the planet by increasing albedo reflectivity to cool the climate and balance the warming from emissions.  The climate goal should shift from Net Zero Emissions to Net Zero Heating, balancing warming and cooling as equal and opposite forcings, with the cooling delivered primarily by albedo enhancement through solar geoengineering while emissions continue.  Converting the excess ~trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases in the air into non-warming forms and cutting new emissions will then be a task over decades and centuries.   Cutting new emissions is marginal to climate stability in the near term. Decarbonising the economy is a secondary climate security factor compared to preventing global tipping points such as the melting of the poles, which can only be slowed by brightening the planet.  Just as the USA successfully sent and returned a man to and from the Moon in the 1960s, the world today should commit to refreezing the Arctic with ice cover expanding by 2030.

 

In response to the view of Robert Chris and Ye Tao that CDR cannot be scaled up, my view is that algae farms on ten percent of the world ocean could remove all the excess CO2 from the air, converting it to soil, biomass, fuel, materials, etc to drive an abundant sustainable global economy and ecology.  That claim still has something of a science fiction quality about it.  I expanded upon it in the attached unpublished paper, imagining what would actually be involved in scaling carbon conversion to tens of gigatonnes per year.  Assessing and commencing such a program would take decades to have cooling effect, which is why brightening should start with a Moonshot announcement as soon as possible of an ambitious polar freezing result by 2030.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2022 8:48 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

 

Hi Robert

The extract below from your comments on the AGU draft highlights a central issue that needs to be carefully examined and justified on the basis of the science, both the physical and social science.

First, this statement is patently not a fact.  I shall not use CI as it's not a useful term insofar as it combines CDR and AE, two very different types of climate intervention both in terms of methods and effects.  Their effects are so different that your statement that one can substitute for the other needs clarification.

Your statement that it would be perfectly possible to scale GHG removal to larger than current emissions is total conjecture.  It would certainly be nice if that were so, but presently there's no known means of doing it, and there are some good theoretical reasons to suggest that it's not likely, and maybe not even possible.

Climate change is the consequence of the earth's energy imbalance (EEI).  However you shuffle the climate cards, the climate won't be stabilised until the EEI=0.  But this is not simply a case of net incoming SWR equalling net outgoing LWR.  Imagine as an extreme case just to illustrate the point, that we accumulated vast amounts of GHGs by burning fossil fuels to our hearts' content, and compensated for this cosy blanket by shutting out half incoming insolation.  EEI=0 but that would everywhere produce a very different local climate that would have devastating consequences for life all around the globe.

Prudence suggests that we should return much closer to pre-industrial GHGs and not have to interfere with insolation.  AE should be undertaken to the minimum extent possible just to keep surface temperature within acceptable bounds and crucially avoid many meters of sea level rise.  Decarbonisation of energy and the atmosphere should also be done as much as possible.  It's a timing problem.  The decarbonisation doesn't work fast enough and the AE has to bridge the gap.  But if you don't do the decarbonisation, the gap becomes larger and larger and eventually becomes unmanageable.

The reason the gap becomes unmanageable has little to do with the science or the climate but everything to with geopolitics and the global economy.  The interests that become vested in AE become as powerful as the current fossil fuel sector, that as we know is more concerned about its bottom line than about climate change.  If there were a Holy Alliance between the fossil fuel sector and the AE sector, a world would be created that would most probably be utterly dystopian.   It might not be of course.  Those controlling these vast global enterprises might be motivated by nothing but milk and kindness and concern for the welfare of all humanity.  Maybe they'd be run by religious orders.  That would remove all concerns about unfairness (irony alert!).

The bottom line is that none of emissions abatement, GGR and AE is sufficient, but all are necessary and together they might be sufficient if undertaken simultaneously at speed and scale.

Regards

Robert

[Ye Tao]

Superstition is what Peter Fiekowsky wrote, "that we can restore preindustrial CO2 in 2-3 decades and methane in one decade".

That 99% of climate activists and climate scientists believe that reducing emissions is the "solution" are tragedies, respectively, of western secondary education and the siloization of post-secondary science education.

Ye

On 12/9/2022 1:00 PM, John Nissen wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqOPcGJXWwve8MoQL5nZaeL_O98zDED4ftPOFj%2BAULeDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Hi John

I do love the way you set out the bleak truth and then sign off 'Cheers'.  I can think of almost nothing less cheery than the message you're conveying.

From my complex adaptive systems perspective, while it's impossible to be certain, I am increasingly confident that human civilisation has passed a tipping point and is now destined for a major collapse, perhaps similar to the fall of the Roman Empire, maybe also to be followed by an replay of the Dark Age.  This will be induced by climate tipping points being passed and Nature reminding us, because we've clearly forgotten, that it is more powerful than we are and we screw around with it at our peril.

All complex adaptive systems eventually become so focussed on retaining what they've accumulated, that the lose the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.  The more they resist the need for change, the more they hasten their abrupt collapse.  Climate change nerds like us tend to focus on the climate tipping points and forget that these are caused by geopolitical and socio-economic forces acting to preserve precisely the behaviours that are preventing us from avoiding the climate tipping points.  Human civilisation's collapse has become, or is very close to becoming, a necessary correction for Nature to restore the earth's energy balance.

Is that cheery enough?

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqOPcGJXWwve8MoQL5nZaeL_O98zDED4ftPOFj%2BAULeDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Only just got to look at the AGU draft.  Where's the sense of urgency?

Rebranding geoengineering as 'climate intervention' is telling.  'Geoengineering' is a tainted term, so let's repeat the same messages that have in circulation since the 2009 Royal Society Report (one of the AGU's referenced documents).   There's nothing new here.  And that's the tragedy because the situation now is not what it was in 2009.  Then emissions abatement was still expected to be sufficient.  Then by 2014 it was recognised that it wouldn't be so some CDR was added, but only half-heartedly.  Now in 2022 we're adding albedo management, but again, only half-heartedly. 

The message should be that emissions abatement is no longer sufficient.  CDR will help but even combined with aggressive emissions abatement will take too long to impact surface temperature.  But both rapid and deep emissions abatement and CDR remain necessary for the medium to long term restoration of the earth's energy imbalance.  So, if you really want to avoid some serious climate tipping points, albedo enhancement (AE as I now like to call it) is essential.  AE isn't optional, it's necessary.  Necessity, as has long been known, is the mother of invention.  We'd better to some serious AE invention in very short order if we are to stand any chance of saving most of what we currently call human civilisation.

That's urgency.  All the rest is waffle.

It is also worth registering that the slower we are in doing the AE research in a socially responsible manner, the greater the likelihood that later, it'll be done in haste with poor preparation and scant concern for its equity impact.  History suggests that that's most likely what will happen, but by the time it does, it'll be too late to save most of what we now imagine must be saved.

Regards

Robert

On 09/12/2022 20:10, Ye Tao wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e9209fc6-b4e3-958f-1c21-8e5e1066e377%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert T,

I think it is advisable to add a small section estimating the material feasibility of floating OMEGA infrastructure on not 10% but 0.1% of the ocean surface.

You might be surprised.

Best,

Ye

--

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/03ea01d90c44%24d2f28980%2478d79c80%24%40rtulip.net.

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

Hi Ye

 

Yes, that is what I meant by ‘modern day superstition’: assuming things are a certain way, when they are not that way.

 

Closely related is the phrase made famous by Donald Rumsfeld: There are things we know, things we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know.

 

It’s the job of scientists to remain open to that at all times.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e9209fc6-b4e3-958f-1c21-8e5e1066e377%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Ye

 

Re your questions on my ocean algae paper, Sections 3.5 Potential Ocean Algae Production Methods: River Deployment and 3.6 Eventual Oceanic Scale describe a gradual expansion path.  The 10% coverage of the world ocean would mainly be macroalgae, with microalgae to follow as a more intensive method.  The 10% number came from Ocean Foresters (actually 9%, cited at footnote 103) and was endorsed by Tim Flannery as a reasonable goal for macroalgae.

 

You ask about materials to cover 0.1% of the world ocean. That is 361,000 km².  The only way such scale or larger could be deployed is if this method of carbon conversion becomes commercially profitable so that expansion pays for itself. My calculation in the paper is that given the algae yields achieved in the pilot OMEGA project averaged about 15 grams dry weight per square metre per day, scaled up to about 1% of the world ocean this output rate would utilise 50 Gt of CO₂ per year.

 

If we humans decide to stabilise our planet, ocean algae production might be the best way to do it. It would take a long time though. In the near term albedo should be the focus.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9ca0514e-cc4c-2614-8878-0e3eaf1e3935%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert,

In estimating material requirement, one needs to consider what mineral, metals, and plastics go into a reactor of the type depicted in your Figure 5.

I would imagine it optimistic to achieve a projected 2D thickness less than 1cm in thickness, assuming container side wall of ~4mm, say made of stainless steel for moderate structural integrity and corrosion resistance.   Adding in the complexity in Figure 6 makes the engineering more challenging.  Have you or anyone else calculated the total required materials and compare against global annual productions, and reserves.  What about the associated emissions making and maintaining these infrastructural materials?

Thanks,

Ye

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Ye

 

My proposal, which may or may not be feasible, is based on the waterbag flexible barge concept pioneered by Terry Spragg, for a system that has no solid metal structure, but rather is a fabric membrane that is part of the ocean wave, made of carbon fibre sufficiently strong to withstand ocean forces, including with ability to sink during storms if needed, with fresh water chambers for buoyancy.  By starting in rivers and then sheltered bays, an ocean algae photobioreactor system can gradually work out optimal low cost methods to expand into more difficult environments.

 

The overall plan is that the system makes almost all its own resources, using algae to make the carbon fabric for the containing bag.  As a result the system sequesters carbon in its structure.  Designs based on marine life such as whales and jellyfish can use wave energy for propulsion and pumping.  By using deep ocean hydrothermal liquefaction to separate aqueous and hydrocarbon streams, this method can produce fertilizer and carbon products from the massive billion cubic kilometre resource of deep ocean water, funding its own expansion, while also drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at large scale.  The proposal is for a highly net negative carbon footprint, using the area, energy and resources of the world ocean to support construction methods that have no emissions to make a product that returns the carbon levels toward a stable balance.

 

Regards

 

Robert

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert,

I believe it is important to really crank out the numbers.  Carbon fiber has some of the highest embodied energies, higher compared to plastics and stainless steel on a per-weight basis, comparable to that of aluminum and X10 compared to glass on volumetric bases.   Unless your membrane was sturdy over decades with a sub mm thickness, it is unlikely to scale to 1% ocean surface area. Degradation studies seem just starting to be published and most likely incompatible with decadal, maintenance-free deployment necessary to achieve the required scale.

Adding on all the associated structures and equipment, channeling the totality of global resources to build the system like what you are describing could perhaps reach a steady state within an order of magnitude of 0.1% ocean surface area over 1 century.  And one will also need to convince the ocean plastics people...

Best,

Ye

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Ye

 

My reason for sharing this paper was to highlight that it is reasonable to imagine rapid increase in Carbon Dioxide Removal, with conversion of CDR into a profitable industry based on production of valuable commodities. 

 

I agree with your view that CDR increase cannot affect the climate in the short term.  However, over decades CDR will become an essential part of planetary stabilisation and prosperity.

 

When I mentioned carbon fibre I meant flexible plastic polymers, my mistake.  The fabrics need to be flexible to bend with oceanic forces, not rigid.  Possible materials and methods for ocean algae production will only gradually develop.   I think it should be possible to have no structural metal.

 

I hope first steps can involve building prototypes for river algae production and tidal pumping.  These should be viable inventions in themselves, and will show whether the larger ocean vision is viable.  Converting the fertilizer in the Mississippi River into algae and removing it for sale as biochar would reduce the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Regarding the problem you mention of material degradation at sea, I think it would be necessary for the plastic fabric of a photobioreactor to be constantly replaced like skin, building a new layer from underneath while the outer layer is removed for recycling.  This maintenance system could be largely automated, I imagine with something like robot snails.

 

My attached diagram of ocean floor HTL that you mention is a futuristic imaginative vision of what might be possible if this technology works.  My view is that simplicity will be a key to such technology, aiming to construct the whole apparatus from seamless fabric like a gastrointestinal canal.

 

Regards

Robert

--
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/071065c2-44cd-5c66-d4b9-299922729842%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Leslie and Daniele,  

This statement is a welcome development and I commend you for helping to draft it!

 I have a question and a couple of comments:

Question: After rejoining the AGU, I've been searching through the AGU website and cannot find a place to submit comments? 

Comments: I'd like  to support the draft and urge that it be made both more urgent as (echoing Robert Chris' comment) there is no other option to avoid increasing calamity in the short-run, and more inclusive of other Direct Climate Cooling (DCC) methods some of which have little to no risk and can and should be rolled out for assessment and deployment immediately.  In this sense greater inclusiveness in DCC methods points to the practicality of more urgent deployment of local and low-risk methods even as more global and higher-risk methods are researched and tested further. The draft mentions "Localized surface albedo modification" noting that they are "less studied" as a category of Climate Intervention but neglects to point out and urge that some of these can and should be immediately (if found to be effective in pilots) deployed with little to no risk. 

A similar problem with (non-CDR) GHG reduction efforts is the  seemingly afterthought treatment of methane removal in the statement that Daphne and others in this thread have commented on. As I recall from a podcast (Daphne and others please correct if I'm wrong on this) methods to  burn concentrated anthropogenic and natural methane releases are already included in GHG offset protocols like that of California.  

For documentation of 18 different potential DCC methods including but not exclusively using SRM, see this final HPAC statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit

,

Best,

Ron Baiman

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:32 PM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

You will find the American Geophysical Union draft position statement on Climate Intervention below. I encourage HPAC participants to review this statement and if you an AGU member to submit your comments by January 9th. 

This is an important opportunity to shape AGU intervention policy to be consistent with HPAC principles. 

This page describes the cost and benefits of an AGU membership:

 https://www.agu.org/membership

I was surprised to see that a full year membership is only $50 and $20 for a student. 

I would encourage everyone who has a comment on the statement - whether you are or will become a member or not - to share it with the group. 

Any AGU veterans or others who wish to add to what I have written please do so. 

Thanks,

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimens

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniele Visioni <daniele...@gmail.com>
Date: December 8, 2022 at 1:03:09 PM EST
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention
Reply-To: daniele...@gmail.com

Dear all, 

Please find below a link to the new Draft position statement on Climate Intervention by AGU, to which I contributed to for this year.

Comments are open to all AGU members until January 9th, after which we will take them into consideration for a final draft to be sent to the AGU Council and Board for final approval.

At the link you’ll also see the differences between the new proposed one, and the previous one from 2018.

Best,

Daniele

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Daniele Visioni, PhD
Research Associate
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
US phone: (607)-280-0525
e-mail: daniele...@cornell.edu
website: https://dan-visioni.github.io/
Check out our latest published papers:
Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202230119
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

--
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/D4AFE3C5-0F41-4472-989F-E576501D42A5%40gmail.com.

--
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/33482326-7D3F-4720-A51A-821ADE05A343%40gmail.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

 … over decades CDR will become an essential part of planetary stabilisation and prosperity.

More ancillary food for thought on the sustained near term, medium term and long term need for CDR and SRM … 

C.O.B. Tuesday - "Why The Number One Global ESG Goal Should Be Energy Surplus" Featuring Rob West, Thunder Said Energy

Bit.ly/COBTues23Nov22

Climate (Pod)Notes - It's energy, stupid.

Bit.ly/PodNotes9Dec22

We may have to acknowledge that future humans will live in a "bionic biosphere” in which “extracting" CO2 and CH4 won’t be any more unusual than extracting copper, silver, gypsum, gravel, etc. Just one of many fundamental required normal activities of modern civilization. 

Just a thought,

Doug Grandt

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/017e01d90db6%24a20e85d0%24e62b9170%24%40rtulip.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Fig 6.jpg>

[Chris Vivian]

Ron,

 

You can submit comments at the bottom of the webpage for the draft statement i.e.,

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Draft-Climate-Intervention

 

Chris.

--
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/CAPhUB9Cwqe-GPdpB3OokX4BbFP-2J2v3qneeiRW8%2Bff-%3DfFMQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[greenkni...@gmail.com]

Yes  it is import to develop various methods such as large scale methane oxidation and ocean based CO2 sequestration.

JF 

John M. Fitzgerald

73 Bear Head Rd.

Sedgwick, ME 04676

202-288-0231

On Dec 11, 2022, at 11:16 PM, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:



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/CAPhUB9Cwqe-GPdpB3OokX4BbFP-2J2v3qneeiRW8%2Bff-%3DfFMQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Chris!

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Doug

 

You say ““extracting" CO2 and CH4 won’t be any more unusual than extracting copper, silver, gypsum, gravel, etc”.   That is a great point.

 

Carbon Mining is a good way to see CDR as an extractive industry.  However, rather than extracting CO2 as the end product, carbon mining should transform CO2 into useful commodities through photosynthesis.

 

It should prove possible to find valuable uses for the trillion tonnes of carbon that are now polluting the atmosphere. As you say, we extract copper.  Copper ore is only the unrefined natural form, similar to CO2. 

 

We could find practical uses for all that extra carbon in increasing planetary biomass and other materials.  Burying CO2 in the ground is not a viable strategy as it does not create a profitable product.

 

Using chlorine to convert methane into CO2 at point sources could be a good feedstock for algae production.

 

Part of the religious framing of emission reduction in the climate action movement is to regard extractive industries as morally evil, despite the massive material inputs needed for renewable energy. 

 

Opposition to extraction may be a comforting thought for some, but such views are not helpful to practical climate solutions.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/98428B49-0429-4F17-91EA-A04A0BE85C18%40mac.com.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Doug & RobertT

Is it possible to put any numbers on any of this?  I'm particularly interested in the engineering realities of making it all happen.  What infrastructure is required?  What complementary minerals are needed for these processes, from where, in what quantity, at what cost?  How about their energy requirement?  Your link to MEPS for chlorine catalysed oxidation of methane is interesting.  MEPS is designed to treat the exhaust from livestock sheds.  I'd be happy to put you in touch with the folk behind this to explore ways in which it could be scaled to gigatonnes.

I wonder whether it may be helpful to have all these ideas subject to a routine review by an engineer to establish up front what their resource implications are.  Doing anything at multiple gigatonne scale is totally non-trivial.  We should save our excitement and energy for projects that have some realistic potential.  It's too easy to be beguiled by suppositions such as 'It should prove possible to find valuable uses for the trillion tonnes of carbon'.  Why should it?  It would certainly be nice, but being desirable isn't sufficient to make any judgement about feasibility.

I'm also intrigued by the assumptions underlying 'Burying CO2 in the ground is not a viable strategy as it does not create a profitable product.'  RobertT, are you saying that only processes capable of creating a profitable product can be part of a viable strategy to address global warming?  Or is the 'viable strategy' you're referring to a strategy primarily focussed on making a profit, and only secondarily on ameliorating the effects of climate change?

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000001d90f34%24d5dd5ab0%2481981010%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

I picked up on that point about putting carbon in the ground [1].  Rewilding can have this effect, as I learnt when I visited Knepp [2]; they now make their money from visitors!  But regenerative agriculture and use of biochar can bring profits.  Moreover they could be incentivised by obtaining carbon offset money.  We need to get a virtuous cycle going in poor countries.  A small cook stove won one of the 5 recent Earthshot prizes [3].  There must be a good way to partition biochar between safe cooking and soil improvement.  Ron Larson will know.

Now, back to the AGU conference in Chicago which I am attending virtually.  Yesterday I gave a talk about my poster.  It says almost nothing about CDR - it is almost all about refreezing the Arctic which needs to be top priority for climate action.

Cheers, John

[1] Robert T wrote:

We could find practical uses for all that extra carbon in increasing planetary biomass and other materials.  Burying CO2 in the ground is not a viable strategy as it does not create a profitable product.

[2] https://knepp.co.uk/

[3] https://africatimes.com/2022/12/07/kenyan-awarded-earthshot-prize-for-clean-cookstove-initiative/

Today, she's the recipient of a 2022 Earthshot Prize for her work on climate and the promotion of clean cooking alternatives. Magayi, founder of Mukuru Clean Stoves, was one of five finalists whose work will be supported with £1 million in prize money to advance their goals

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a9decb2b-b3ac-764f-c2ba-762dbb58b8f7%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Hi John

I was quoting RobertT.  The central point I was making still applies - biochar has all manner of environmental benefits that can be marketised, but making a significant contribution to averting a climate catastrophe is not one of them.

Regards

RobertC

[Anderson, Paul]

Robert C.

 

I strongly disagree with your dismissal of biochar as not making a significant contribution to averting a climate catastrophe. 

 

I will keep my rebuttal short:   Please look at my white paper (52 pages) “Climate Intervention with Biochar”  found at https://woodgas.com/resources .   Just browse it and check out the conclusion, please.   (I am now writing a “Roadmap” document to show some scalable implementation of what is in the  white paper.

 

Separate:  As a 20-year specialist in advanced improved cookstoves, I do not detect any special or of significance in the Kenyan stove that won the Earthshot prize.   The cookstove work is seen  in Section XII (pages 21 – 27) in my white paper is far better cookstove technology.   The ONLY cooking method that is carbon  negative is based on pyrolysis and biochar production.     Even solar power is only carbon neutral.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

         Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Websites:    https://woodgas.com see Resources for 1) biochar white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) the Quick Picks for TLUD stove technology.  The full DrTLUD.com website is moving to woodgas.com .

                      https://capitalism21.org for societal reforms and free digital  novella “A Capitalist Carol”  with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 5:45 AM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>; Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [prag] Ocean Algae Paper

 

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1f848c3d-1318-248e-a9f1-b579a4a2cf0c%40gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hello Paul

 

As a strong supporter of the climatic benefits of biochar, I do have to agree with Robert Chris that biochar cannot make a significant contribution to averting a climate catastrophe.  The key issue here is time, that carbon-based climate action is too slow to be the primary cooling lever.

 

The thinking we have been developing in PRAG concerns the immediate risks of climate catastrophe.  It is entirely possible in this decade that methane release could grow to a level that will swamp all carbon-based mitigation with accelerating feedbacks.  The only thing that can stop that catastrophic tipping point is direct cooling, such as refreezing the Arctic. 

 

Carbon-based climate strategies such as biochar will have major cooling effects over the medium term, but the carbon approach has to build upon an albedo approach.  The catastrophic risk we face is short term phase shift in the climate system.  Tipping points can only be mitigated by enhancing albedo.

 

At the moment, the IPCC omits the keystone of the climate security arch, albedo enhancement.  As a result its policies are not fit for purpose.  No amount of scaling up carbon-based climate measures will make any difference in the absence of concerted planetary action on albedo.

 

I would like to see ocean based algae production used to add twenty tonnes of biochar or more to every hectare of agricultural land, if that proves possible.  That will take decades to achieve. In the meantime, biochar has to develop alongside albedo enhancement, recognising albedo as the primary cooling lever.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/SA2PR03MB5932AF9BC0AC9601420512EFDBE09%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Ye Tao:  

Can you give a few examples of "if used as currently proposed in most proposals.”   ?

 I have never seen even one that worsens the climate..

Ron

On Dec 14, 2022, at 7:08 PM, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

correction: "Carbon-negative is not the same of climate POSITIVE (EEI-negative)"

On 12/14/2022 8:58 PM, Ye Tao wrote:

Hi Paul,

Carbon-negative is not the same of climate negative.  Biochar could contribute to reducing atmospheric load of carbon while also contributing to worsening the climate, if used as currently proposed in most proposals.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932AF9BC0AC9601420512EFDBE09%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/8604c951-f422-5ff2-9e3b-837aad2b467a%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ronal Larson]

Robert T. et al. (adding Hugh McLaughlin - who I will be responding to separately soon )

     See inserts below.

On Dec 14, 2022, at 3:01 PM, <rob...@rtulip.net> <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Hello Paul

 

As a strong supporter of the climatic benefits of biochar, I do have to agree with Robert Chris that biochar cannot make a significant contribution to averting a climate catastrophe.  The key issue here is time, that carbon-based climate action is too slow to be the primary cooling lever.

RWL1:  There was an excellent IBI conference last week.  The message I received was that biochar is progressing rapidly.   Rapidly to me means a doubling time under 2 years (or a 35% annual growth rate).   I heard several Corporate examples of a 1 year doubling time.  An order of magnitude is 10 doublings.  Biochar is now at about the 1 megatonne CO2 per year level, so we need 10 doublings (2^10 = 1024) to get to the magic one gigatonne CO2 level.  Which CDR or competitive approach is moving that fast - or  has only one order of magnitude to go?  And one gigatonne CO2 per year only requires about 1/3 as much biochar tonnage (1.5 doublings)?

Some think biochar is limited to 1 Gigatonne CO2/yr.  Biochar literature is usually measured in either tonnes of biochar or tonnes of Carbon.   In the latter units, there is biochar literature with the number 10, not 1.   That literature has not included ocean biomass.

I have exchanged several messages with Robert Chris.  His error is analyzing biochar much as BECCS has been modeled.  Biomass moves are recommended regularly to be in the neighborhood of 50 or 100  km total for biomass in and biochar out.  I hope the numbers I am giving here are convincing to Robert C also.  The IBI biochar webinar recording should be out this week.

 

The thinking we have been developing in PRAG concerns the immediate risks of climate catastrophe.  It is entirely possible in this decade that methane release could grow to a level that will swamp all carbon-based mitigation with accelerating feedbacks.  The only thing that can stop that catastrophic tipping point is direct cooling, such as refreezing the Arctic.  

[RWL2:  I strongly support re-freezing.  Have talked personally for years with the most active proponent - John Nissen in both London and Colorado,  Activity to date is zero - more than 15 years behind biochar - which received its name in 2007 at a time when technical publications per year were fewer than they now are per day.   I think the same is true of every other approach except biochar.  True?   Especially albedo effects,  - which I see no reason should catch up by 2035. 

 

Carbon-based climate strategies such as biochar will have major cooling effects over the medium term, but the carbon approach has to build upon an albedo approach.  The catastrophic risk we face is short term phase shift in the climate system.  Tipping points can only be mitigated by enhancing albedo.

[RWL3:  Your proof of this last sentence?

 

At the moment, the IPCC omits the keystone of the climate security arch, albedo enhancement.  As a result its policies are not fit for purpose.  No amount of scaling up carbon-based climate measures will make any difference in the absence of concerted planetary action on albedo.

[RWL4:  I’m surprised on the IPCC and will check.  I’ve seen a lot of UN literature on albedo effect - mostly a controversial topic.  Many opponents.

 

I would like to see ocean based algae production used to add twenty tonnes of biochar or more to every hectare of agricultural land, if that proves possible.  That will take decades to achieve. In the meantime, biochar has to develop alongside albedo enhancement, recognising albedo as the primary cooling lever.

[RWL5:   Obviously,  I agree with about half these thoughts.  

My coming message to Hugh picks up on your comments about the advantages of a technology which has negative costs.  Turns out there are more papers with the biochar negative-cost theme than I knew before today.  

Last week,  Josiah Hunt , owner of Pacific Biochar gave an excellent presentation on this topic.  He is selling 4x more biochar this year than last (a doubling time of 0.5 years).  (No one should extrapolate that to 10 doublings = 1000 = 3 orders of magnitude in 5 years, but I do think there are few more quick doublings ahead of us.  Biochar is still very immature.)

I agree also with your above positive comments about ocean algae biomass.  Thanks.  

Biochar application can be to way more than just ag land (thinking concrete and asphalt right now).    Obviously farmers need to be conservative in taking on any still complicated unproven technology like biochar (unproven for their specific soil, specific crop, specific weather, etc).  But when the payback time is reliably a year of less - that market will move as fast - as it is for places like golf courses and marijuana culture.  In places where fertilizer can’t be afforded now - that acceptance is already occurring - using biochar possibly made by the farmer or his/heer spouse, with crop residues that otherwise might have been burned in the field.

Ron

[Ye Tao]

correction: "Carbon-negative is not the same of climate POSITIVE (EEI-negative)"

On 12/14/2022 8:58 PM, Ye Tao wrote:

Hi Paul,

Carbon-negative is not the same of climate negative.  Biochar could contribute to reducing atmospheric load of carbon while also contributing to worsening the climate, if used as currently proposed in most proposals.

Ye

On 12/14/2022 11:08 AM, Anderson, Paul wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932AF9BC0AC9601420512EFDBE09%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/8604c951-f422-5ff2-9e3b-837aad2b467a%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ronal Larson]

Robert T. et al. (adding Hugh McLaughlin - who I will be responding to separately soon )

     See inserts below.

On Dec 14, 2022, at 3:01 PM, <rob...@rtulip.net> <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Hello Paul

 

As a strong supporter of the climatic benefits of biochar, I do have to agree with Robert Chris that biochar cannot make a significant contribution to averting a climate catastrophe.  The key issue here is time, that carbon-based climate action is too slow to be the primary cooling lever.

RWL1:  There was an excellent IBI conference last week.  The message I received was that biochar is progressing rapidly.   Rapidly to me means a doubling time under 2 years (or a 35% annual growth rate).   I heard several Corporate examples of a 1 year doubling time.  An order of magnitude is 10 doublings.  Biochar is now at about the 1 megatonne CO2 per year level, so we need 10 doublings (2^10 = 1024) to get to the magic one gigatonne CO2 level.  Which CDR or competitive approach is moving that fast - or  has only one order of magnitude to go?  And one gigatonne CO2 per year only requires about 1/3 as much biochar tonnage (1.5 doublings)?

Some think biochar is limited to 1 Gigatonne CO2/yr.  Biochar literature is usually measured in either tonnes of biochar or tonnes of Carbon.   In the latter units, there is biochar literature with the number 10, not 1.   That literature has not included ocean biomass.

I have exchanged several messages with Robert Chris.  His error is analyzing biochar much as BECCS has been modeled.  Biomass moves are recommended regularly to be in the neighborhood of 50 or 100  km total for biomass in and biochar out.  I hope the numbers I am giving here are convincing to Robert C also.  The IBI biochar webinar recording should be out this week.

The thinking we have been developing in PRAG concerns the immediate risks of climate catastrophe.  It is entirely possible in this decade that methane release could grow to a level that will swamp all carbon-based mitigation with accelerating feedbacks.  The only thing that can stop that catastrophic tipping point is direct cooling, such as refreezing the Arctic.  

[RWL2:  I strongly support re-freezing.  Have talked personally for years with the most active proponent - John Nissen in both London and Colorado,  Activity to date is zero - more than 15 years behind biochar - which received its name in 2007 at a time when technical publications per year were fewer than they now are per day.   I think the same is true of every other approach except biochar.  True?   Especially albedo effects,  - which I see no reason should catch up by 2035. 

 

Carbon-based climate strategies such as biochar will have major cooling effects over the medium term, but the carbon approach has to build upon an albedo approach.  The catastrophic risk we face is short term phase shift in the climate system.  Tipping points can only be mitigated by enhancing albedo.

[RWL3:  Your proof of this last sentence?

 

At the moment, the IPCC omits the keystone of the climate security arch, albedo enhancement.  As a result its policies are not fit for purpose.  No amount of scaling up carbon-based climate measures will make any difference in the absence of concerted planetary action on albedo.

[RWL4:  I’m surprised on the IPCC and will check.  I’ve seen a lot of UN literature on albedo effect - mostly a controversial topic.  Many opponents.

 

I would like to see ocean based algae production used to add twenty tonnes of biochar or more to every hectare of agricultural land, if that proves possible.  That will take decades to achieve. In the meantime, biochar has to develop alongside albedo enhancement, recognising albedo as the primary cooling lever.

[RWL5:   Obviously,  I agree with about half these thoughts.  

My coming message to Hugh picks up on your comments about the advantages of a technology which has negative costs.  Turns out there are more papers with the biochar negative-cost theme than I knew before today.  

Last week,  Josiah Hunt , owner of Pacific Biochar gave an excellent presentation on this topic.  He is selling 4x more biochar this year than last (a doubling time of 0.5 years).  (No one should extrapolate that to 10 doublings = 1000 = 3 orders of magnitude in 5 years, but I do think there are few more quick doublings ahead of us.  Biochar is still very immature.)

I agree also with your above positive comments about ocean algae biomass.  Thanks.  

Biochar application can be to way more than just ag land (thinking concrete and asphalt right now).    Obviously farmers need to be conservative in taking on any still complicated unproven technology like biochar (unproven for their specific soil, specific crop, specific weather, etc).  But when the payback time is reliably a year of less - that market will move as fast - as it is for places like golf courses and marijuana culture.  In places where fertilizer can’t be afforded now - that acceptance is already occurring - using biochar possibly made by the farmer or his/heer spouse, with crop residues that otherwise might have been burned in the field..

Ron

[Ye Tao]

Hi Paul,

Carbon-negative is not the same of climate negative.  Biochar could contribute to reducing atmospheric load of carbon while also contributing to worsening the climate, if used as currently proposed in most proposals.

Ye

On 12/14/2022 11:08 AM, Anderson, Paul wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932AF9BC0AC9601420512EFDBE09%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Ron,

I am certainly no expert, but I often read and hear calls to apply biochar to soil for moisture retention and other plant growth benefits.  However, according to studies I attached in the last email,  applying biochar to soils can lead to significant darkening and albedo loss, the resulting heating can offset a significant part of the climate benefit from CO2(atm) reduction.

Ye

[rob...@rtulip.net]

RC

 

I was prompted to share my ocean algae essay to respond to Ye Tao’s criticisms of the cooling return on investment of CDR, which I think are too harsh.  I agree with Ye that carbon-based approaches cannot mitigate climate change in the short term, but this needs to be put in the longer context of the need to cut GHG levels to achieve climate stability over the next century, following stabilisation by albedo enhancement.

 

On your question about numbers, as I mentioned earlier, NASA obtained algae yields in its pilot OMEGA project averaging about 15 grams dry weight per square metre per day.  Scaled up to about 1% of the world ocean this output rate would utilise 50 Gt of CO₂ per year.  That would require high quantity of nutrient feedstock, which could come from deep ocean water, with the limitation that much of the CO2 would initially come from the deep ocean rather than from the atmosphere. 

 

My calculation in the paper is that the deep ocean contains about 135 Gt of phosphate and 950 Gt of nitrate.  That phosphate quantity is about 500 times annual world phosphate use.  If these nutrients could be extracted using the method described to concentrate and utilize algae biomass with seafloor HTL processing they could be recycled to catalyse conversion of a very large quantity of CO2 into hydrocarbons, food, soil, biomass, materials and other valuable products.

 

What I would like to see is prototype construction of a tidal pump and a run of river algae photobioreactor.  These look to me to be fairly simple and useful, but I am not an engineer, and I could well be missing key factors.  These projects would rapidly assess whether expansion to the open ocean could be feasible.  It is a bit like how whales evolved from riverine hippos fifty million years ago. I imagine the construction as totally using carbon materials, for example weaving bags with carbon rope, eventually with floating algae farms on square kilometre scale or bigger using woven fabric a metre thick to withstand ocean conditions.

 

You are right that being desirable isn't sufficient to make any judgement about feasibility.  However, I do think this project would have major benefits, so prototyping and analysis would be very worthwhile.  My starting point with this work included the views that a return to Holocene atmosphere is necessary, that only the world ocean has the area, resources and energy to achieve this task by transforming CO2 into biomass, that algae should be used because it is the fastest growing biomass, that ocean algae production should be a major new industry this century, and that this is a way to generate massive abundance for a sustainable and prosperous peaceful global civilization that protects and enhances biodiversity. 

 

I see a need to build upon the capitalist system rather than seek to replace it.  If ocean algae can become profitable at gigatonne scale, then well-regulated capitalist investment offers the best way to promote innovation and rapid growth of markets.  I do think that processes capable of creating a profitable product are essential for a viable strategy to address global warming, in a context of public private partnership.  Overall governance, of both albedo enhancement and carbon conversion, has to rest with governments.  The commodity potential of algae means burying CO2 is a waste of valuable carbon.  Albedo enhancement can also be profitable through creation of radiative forcing credits.

 

On MEPS, I am friends with David Miller, and would be interested in using MEPS as a way to convert CH4 into CO2 as algae feedstock.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

ocean algae paper

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/a9decb2b-b3ac-764f-c2ba-762dbb58b8f7%40gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

RC

 

I was prompted to share my ocean algae essay to respond to Ye Tao’s criticisms of the cooling return on investment of CDR, which I think are too harsh.  I agree with Ye that carbon-based approaches cannot mitigate climate change in the short term, but this needs to be put in the longer context of the need to cut GHG levels to achieve climate stability over the next century, following stabilisation by albedo enhancement.

 

On your question about numbers, as I mentioned earlier, NASA obtained algae yields in its pilot OMEGA project averaging about 15 grams dry weight per square metre per day.  Scaled up to about 1% of the world ocean this output rate would utilise 50 Gt of CO₂ per year.  That would require high quantity of nutrient feedstock, which could come from deep ocean water, with the limitation that much of the CO2 would initially come from the deep ocean rather than from the atmosphere. 

 

My calculation in the paper is that the deep ocean contains about 135 Gt of phosphate and 950 Gt of nitrate.  That phosphate quantity is about 500 times annual world phosphate use.  If these nutrients could be extracted using the method described to concentrate and utilize algae biomass with seafloor HTL processing they could be recycled to catalyse conversion of a very large quantity of CO2 into hydrocarbons, food, soil, biomass, materials and other valuable products.

 

What I would like to see is prototype construction of a tidal pump and a run of river algae photobioreactor.  These look to me to be fairly simple and useful, but I am not an engineer, and I could well be missing key factors.  These projects would rapidly assess whether expansion to the open ocean could be feasible.  It is a bit like how whales evolved from riverine hippos fifty million years ago. I imagine the construction as totally using carbon materials, for example weaving bags with carbon rope, eventually with floating algae farms on square kilometre scale or bigger using woven fabric a metre thick to withstand ocean conditions.

 

You are right that being desirable isn't sufficient to make any judgement about feasibility.  However, I do think this project would have major benefits, so prototyping and analysis would be very worthwhile.  My starting point with this work included the views that a return to Holocene atmosphere is necessary, that only the world ocean has the area, resources and energy to achieve this task by transforming CO2 into biomass, that algae should be used because it is the fastest growing biomass, that ocean algae production should be a major new industry this century, and that this is a way to generate massive abundance for a sustainable and prosperous peaceful global civilization that protects and enhances biodiversity. 

 

I see a need to build upon the capitalist system rather than seek to replace it.  If ocean algae can become profitable at gigatonne scale, then well-regulated capitalist investment offers the best way to promote innovation and rapid growth of markets.  I do think that processes capable of creating a profitable product are essential for a viable strategy to address global warming, in a context of public private partnership.  Overall governance, of both albedo enhancement and carbon conversion, has to rest with governments.  The commodity potential of algae means burying CO2 is a waste of valuable carbon.  Albedo enhancement can also be profitable through creation of radiative forcing credits.

 

On MEPS, I am friends with David Miller, and would be interested in using MEPS as a way to convert CH4 into CO2 as algae feedstock.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

ocean algae paper

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris

Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2022 8:18 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/a9decb2b-b3ac-764f-c2ba-762dbb58b8f7%40gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Ron

 

Thanks for your response.  I always appreciate your views, and especially welcome your positive comments about ocean algae biomass.  But I disagree with you on albedo.  Just because people have not yet been convinced does not imply that will not change quickly, if political and economic interests require that change.

 

Ready markets exist for biochar, as you point out.  That is different from albedo enhancement, which requires a paradigm shift in global climate policy.  The reason why that shift is needed is that without higher albedo the planet faces high risk of catastrophic tipping points with major economic, social and ecological impacts. 

 

Carbon-based measures, including biochar, are physically constrained to be too small and slow to have more than a secondary role in preventing tipping points, which are primarily driven by heat. As Ye Tao has pointed out, biochar could darken the planet, outweighing its GHG removal benefits for climate.  Only albedo enhancement can bring a significant reversal of rising heat within our lifetimes.  That is why the climate paradigm should shift from net zero emissions to net zero heating.

 

Feasible methods to brighten the planet could cut temperature increase by more than two degrees C in 50 years, as reported here.  No carbon-based cooling methods come anywhere near that potential, which is a conservative estimate since it is based on only one technology.

 

The IPCC failed to put albedo on the agenda at COP27 or to mention it in the AR6 Summary for Policy Makers.  My view is that this silence reflects the adherents of a failed paradigm systematically excluding discussion of their failure, more as stuff-up than conspiracy. 

 

Opponents of albedo enhancement wrongly believe either that cutting emissions can be the primary measure to stabilise the climate or that nothing can be done.  Those views are contradicted by extensive scientific literature.  The emerging false popular consensus is that nothing can prevent overshoot of 1.5C.  That view is only maintained through dogged deliberate denial toward albedo.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/B281166B-DDA5-4BDF-953E-408BDEC694D2%40comcast.net.

[Douglas Grandt]

This conversation is “delightful”! I’ve just now caught up on all responses to-date.

This week I am preparing for a presentation this coming Saturday to a friend’s ad hoc eco socialist occasional zoom group who have expressed interest in what we (PRAG) have been deliberating and the road-blocks we face.

My slides and message intend to reframe (think George Lakoff’s ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant!‘) the TABOO label that has been stamped on all things under the broad umbrella “solar geoengineering” (shortened to “geoengineering”) that Mike Mann*,  Bill McKibben**, Naomi Klein*, Greta Thunberg*, Jennie Stephens*, Åsa Larsson Blind*, Raymond Pierrehumbert*, Tom Goldtooth* and Vandana Shiva* condem, and it just so happened that the podcast** I mentioned Tuesday appeared in my phone’s notification list. Serendipity!

*    Bit.ly/SoGeo10Jun21 (screenshots ⬇️)

**  Bit.ly/NYer22Nov22

***Bit.ly/PodNotes9Dec22 

I’ve been totally focused on creating a handful of slides to modify an existing 32-minute “May Day” presentation that was subsequently shortened to 15 minutes for the local Vermont chapter of Bill McKibben’s new “ThirdAct” movement.

Reframing “geoengineering” as just one more among countless extractive industries upon which modern civilization relies for survival seemed to have some promise … 

The new slides are now complete, and I feel comfortable with the images and message. I’m now in the process of honing it down to 10-12 minutes … private dress rehearsals recorded on my laptop … keeping within the time budget is imperative.

Will share the final dress rehearsal recording, as well as the group response.

Best,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 13, 2022, at 5:58 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/a9decb2b-b3ac-764f-c2ba-762dbb58b8f7%40gmail.com

[Ronal Larson]

Ye and ccs

See inserts.

On Dec 14, 2022, at 9:42 PM, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

Hi Ron,

I am certainly no expert, but I often read and hear calls to apply biochar to soil for moisture retention and other plant growth benefits. 

RWL1:  And CDR.  All for positive economic reasons.  Always investments, not costs.

However, according to studies I attached in the last email, 

[RWL2:   My apologies - I don’t recall seeing any and I can’t find any now.  Can you please re-send.

applying biochar to soils can lead to significant darkening and albedo loss,

[RWL3:  The literature I read agrees there could be a small albedo loss in the first year and much less in subsequent years.  It makes little sense to leave the char on the surface - it is needed in the root zone.  Those placing it only on the surface are not doing it as recommended.

I am guessing that, averaged over 100 years, the albedo loss is about 1% of the positive climate impact from biochar application.   When char is placed in concrete and asphalt there is absolute zero albedo loss.  Do your studies on albedo loss state that biochar should not be applied?

the resulting heating can offset a significant part of the climate benefit from CO2(atm) reduction.

[RWL4:   I look forward to seeing how your studies define “significant” -  compared to my guess of 1% albedo loss when averaged over about 1 Mt CO2 per year applied in the first year out of 100.

Ron

[Ronal Larson]

Ye et al:

My apologies.  I found your yesterday message with five attached albedo papers.   I have skimmed them all and find nothing to support your last claim below:  “The resulting heating can offset a significant part of the climate benefit from CO2(atm) reduction.

All five papers are by biochar supporters.  There is much good information in these five on the amount of albedo loss with differing impact with amount of biochar (fortunately not a linear trend).

I didn’t find much reference to albedo in out years.  One paper showed the expected improvement in year 2.

All five papers are relatively old (2012, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2018).  Perhaps the biochar community has stopped worrying about this issue

It is interesting that this topic is appearing in a thread devoted to ocean algae - where this topic has zero relevance.

Ron

<snip - as not on topic)

--
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/EF6A669F-D326-45C9-8E70-D8DBB2EB6F58%40comcast.net.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert,

"The emerging false popular consensus is that nothing can prevent overshoot of 1.5C. That view is only maintained through dogged deliberate denial toward albedo." 

Even if we had a global policy based on albedo enhancement, it would still be improbable, logistically, to prevent overshooting 1.5C.   SAI and MCB need, respectively, minimum 5-20 years of R&D with unlimited funding to have a chance of working at scale. MEER could work just in time, if and only if we had an immediate, globally coordinate measure to mandate digesting all of the world's plastic, glass, and aluminum waste for mirror production.

1.5C overshoot is locked in, and will be recorded within ~ the next 8 years.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03a101d91087%24ec92e6e0%24c5b8b4a0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Tom Goreau]

Thanks, Ye, but  this is a very misleadingly titled paper which is NOT about Biochar at all!

 

I wanted to find out if they made the usual mistake of applying raw biochar to the surface, the most ineffective possible mode of application and most common among naïve and inexperienced users, but there is no mention of ANY biochar being used at all, nor its quality, quantity, or mode of application!

 

They measured albedo of farms on light and dark soils in various places, but the albedo differences were due to the crops planted and methods of fallowing, and not due to Biochar applications at all, not even faulty misapplications!

 

They then made up a story about “mimicking” the anticipated effects of biochar, even though none was used!

 

Much more serious work than this is needed to resolve the issue of biochar benefits and costs, using a full range of soil types, vegetation types, farming practices, and methods of Biochar application.

 

It is worth mentioning that the method of Biochar application we most recommend is NOT to broadcast raw biochar on the surface, which is expensive to do and not very effective, causing negative effects to plants by outcompeting them for nitrogen and phosphorus, but to use MATURE biochar that has been blended with rock powders and with  compost and with beneficial microorganisms, then to plant the seedlings in soil bags of biochar enriched soil to give them a quick head start and a supply of minerals that will last most of the life of the tree. The biochar is down underground inside the soil where the mycorrhizal fungi can feed adsorbed nutrients directly to roots, greatly stimulating both carbon drawdown and soil storage and shading the soil surface, and NOT on top of the bare ground where it absorbs sunlight. So these authors are “mimicking” a worst case scenario, not a typical one!

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 10:45 PM
To: Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Paul Anderson <psan...@ilstu.edu>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [prag] Ocean Algae Paper

Hi Ron,

I am glad you were able to find the albedo papers.  To understand my last claim, this reference that starts to attempt an albedo-CO2_(atm) conversion might help.  

I estimate the conversion factor, globally averaged, to be -200 (ton eCO2 per hectare) per +0.1 albedo change. The calculation roughly goes as follows: Heating power per 1 ton of CO2_atm is 1 kW.  200 ton eCO2 exerts a heating power of 200kW.  Each m2 of land receives order 180W downwelling shortwave.  0.1 albedo change equals 18W.  1hectare darkening by 0.1 albedo leads to increase in heating power of 18E4W = 180 kW ~ 200kW.

From the abstract of the 2012_Suface albedo... paper: "Plots treated with biochar, at a rate of 30–60 t ha^-1, showed a surface albedo decrease of up to 80% (after the application) with respect to the control in bare soil conditions".  From Fig. 1, the annual average is about -0.06 albedo change, equivalent to + 120 ton eCO2 virtual emissions (heating basis).   This is consistent with finding in the 2012_Albedo impact paper: "an average mean annual albedo reduction of 0.05 has been calculated for applying 30−32 Mg ha−1 biochar on a test field near Bayreuth, Germany."  120 ton eCO2 is about 33 ton pure carbon, so comparable to the 30-60 t biochar = 20-42 ton carbon per hectare application rate studied in the reference.  Thus the CO2 sequestration benefit is largely balanced by albedo heating, resulting in substantially reduced climate benefit.

 

I sent the wrong 2015 paper.  Correct one attached. From this study that examines large-scale application impact: "Estimations of MPR due to biochar driven changes in albedo that were previously obtained at the plot and laboratory scales (Genesio et al 2012, Meyer et al 2012, Verheijen et al 2013), are fully consistent to the results presented herein at much higher scale where more complex textural patterns are analysed in a multi-annual framework.
• Such validation confirms in a robust and scalable manner that if soils will become darker, a moderate but detectable increase in RF will occur and this will offset a non-negligible fraction of biochar C-sequestration potential."  Thus the paper writes in abstract: "This soil signal, expressed as an albedo difference, induced a local instantaneous radiative forcing of up to 4.7Wm−2 during periods of high solar irradiance. Biochar mitigation potential might therefore be reduced up to∼30%."

 

The 2018 paper is to highlight the seasonal dependence, which is taken into account by the 2015 paper in the paragraph above.  

 

One also has to remember that

1) even if ignoring the albedo penalty, the CROI of biochar, accounting for its energy generation potential, is <1000, so not scalable from an energy feasibility point of view (see my HPAC presentation.).  Though surface area and photosynthesis are other constraints that prevents energy constraints from manifecting, in which case devoting energy to biochar depletes energy from albedo enhancement approaches such as MEER, leading to a net decrease of human fitness at civilizational scale.

2) The conversion in the first paragraph above does not take into account ocean off-gasing as a result of atmospheric drawdown.

3) The problem of atmospheric release of black carbon particles, leading to atmospheric heating, when biochar production is scaled, has not been taken into account in the albedo accounting.

 

In conclusion, biochar, as useful as it is for renewable carbon energy generation and adaptation, is not capable of mitigation, and should not be promoted as such.

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4115B319-4916-436D-B42C-6C233F122191%40comcast.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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/6e0be51d-c8d8-3f1f-4bfe-0dfa66e512f5%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Robert Chris]

Tom

Useful comments about mature biochar.  Would this process of maturation have implications for gigatonne scalability?  

Regards

Robert

[Ye Tao]

Hi Ron,

I am glad you were able to find the albedo papers.  To understand my last claim, this reference that starts to attempt an albedo-CO2_(atm) conversion might help.  

I estimate the conversion factor, globally averaged, to be -200 (ton eCO2 per hectare) per +0.1 albedo change. The calculation roughly goes as follows: Heating power per 1 ton of CO2_atm is 1 kW.  200 ton eCO2 exerts a heating power of 200kW.  Each m2 of land receives order 180W downwelling shortwave.  0.1 albedo change equals 18W.  1hectare darkening by 0.1 albedo leads to increase in heating power of 18E4W = 180 kW ~ 200kW.

From the abstract of the 2012_Suface albedo... paper: "Plots treated with biochar, at a rate of 30–60 t ha^-1, showed a surface albedo decrease of up to 80% (after the application) with respect to the control in bare soil conditions".  From Fig. 1, the annual average is about -0.06 albedo change, equivalent to + 120 ton eCO2 virtual emissions (heating basis).   This is consistent with finding in the 2012_Albedo impact paper: "an average mean annual albedo reduction of 0.05 has been calculated for applying 30−32 Mg ha−1 biochar on a test field near Bayreuth, Germany."  120 ton eCO2 is about 33 ton pure carbon, so comparable to the 30-60 t biochar = 20-42 ton carbon per hectare application rate studied in the reference.  Thus the CO2 sequestration benefit is largely balanced by albedo heating, resulting in substantially reduced climate benefit.

I sent the wrong 2015 paper.  Correct one attached. From this study that examines large-scale application impact: "Estimations of MPR due to biochar driven changes in albedo that were previously obtained at the plot and laboratory scales (Genesio et al 2012, Meyer et al 2012, Verheijen et al 2013), are fully consistent to the results presented herein at much higher scale where more complex textural patterns are analysed in a multi-annual framework.
• Such validation confirms in a robust and scalable manner that if soils will become darker, a moderate but detectable increase in RF will occur and this will offset a non-negligible fraction of biochar C-sequestration potential."  Thus the paper writes in abstract: "This soil signal, expressed as an albedo difference, induced a local instantaneous radiative forcing of up to 4.7Wm−2 during periods of high solar irradiance. Biochar mitigation potential might therefore be reduced up to∼30%."

The 2018 paper is to highlight the seasonal dependence, which is taken into account by the 2015 paper in the paragraph above.  

One also has to remember that

1) even if ignoring the albedo penalty, the CROI of biochar, accounting for its energy generation potential, is <1000, so not scalable from an energy feasibility point of view (see my HPAC presentation.).  Though surface area and photosynthesis are other constraints that prevents energy constraints from manifecting, in which case devoting energy to biochar depletes energy from albedo enhancement approaches such as MEER, leading to a net decrease of human fitness at civilizational scale.

2) The conversion in the first paragraph above does not take into account ocean off-gasing as a result of atmospheric drawdown.

3) The problem of atmospheric release of black carbon particles, leading to atmospheric heating, when biochar production is scaled, has not been taken into account in the albedo accounting.

In conclusion, biochar, as useful as it is for renewable carbon energy generation and adaptation, is not capable of mitigation, and should not be promoted as such.

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4115B319-4916-436D-B42C-6C233F122191%40comcast.net.

[Tom Goreau]

There are practical tradeoffs based on experience between effectiveness and cost for every method, which are often ignored by modellers, for biochar as for sea spray, smoke, and mirrors.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/59e1547c-8142-779b-0c74-46b94bf18b70%40gmail.com.

[Albert Bates]

Well said, Tom. I have been combating this meme of albedo effect since Biofuelswatch raised it more than a decade ago. It even came up from a scientist who should know better during the December 1 HPAC meeting.

--
Global Village Institute / GVIx.org
HQ at The Farm
184 Schoolhouse Rd / POB 90
Summertown TN 38483 USA
+01-931-201-7932 office
+01-615-586-0234 mobile

Cool Lab Project Offices
Gonzalo Guerrero 5, Holbox, Q Roo, México
Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia, Toledo, Belize
El Valle Lodge, Samana, Dominican Republic
52-998-116-5532
alb...@thefarm.org
albertbates.cool

The Great Change, weekly at cooldesign.substack.com

Please consider helping migrants along The Green Road: Refugees from the conflict in Ukraine are being assisted, resettled and fed by more than 300 ecovillages and permaculture projects. You can grow a garden, buy a mattress or help a schoolteacher purchase more workbooks by donating to The Green Road, sponsored by Global Village Institute. Your donations are tax-deductible in the USA. Crypto accepted.

Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Using Fire to Build a New Carbon Economy and Cool the Planet at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your enthusiasm, but mirrors too, have scalability limits. 

MEER scalability is currently at a flux of 50 Gton eCO2 per year, corresponding to 5E11 m2 per year.  The scalability limit is set by the availability of PET going to landfills.   The rather convenient coincidence is the fact that current flux of PET packaging in the waste stream is just more than sufficient for CO2 warming cancellation.   Assuming that the scale of the plastics industry is proportional to the size of the economy (which is proportional to annual CO2 emissions), we should be able to make enough mirrors to fully cancel the warming from contemporary emissions as long as the proportionality are kept during decarbonization.  It is also possible that the plastics industry grows relative to CO2 emissions, as renewable energy participates in plastic primary production in a future economy.  I think this is rather likely and desirable, since plastics are the true class of fully renewable structural material.

Best,

Ye

On 12/16/2022 9:27 AM, Robert Chris wrote:

Tom, I'll take that as a 'yes', that biochar maturation would reduce its scalability.  I'd disagree about one of your other examples.  There's absolutely no limit to the scalability of smoke and mirrors.  (I'm assuming that the comma after 'smoke' was just a typo.)

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/ec502e96-5f2e-bcdd-3d6a-2d37497e3c82%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Tom, I'll take that as a 'yes', that biochar maturation would reduce its scalability.  I'd disagree about one of your other examples.  There's absolutely no limit to the scalability of smoke and mirrors.  (I'm assuming that the comma after 'smoke' was just a typo.)

Regards

Robert

On 16/12/2022 14:22, Tom Goreau wrote:

[Tom Goreau]

What this mimicking model describes is not biochar as normally used below the soil surface but the results of catastrophic forest fires like those in California, Siberia, Australia, and next year, parts of northern Canada and Siberia which have had an extreme drought all year long.

 

When there is no living vegetation and the ground is entirely covered with black charcoal centimeters deep, the burned ground is unbearably hot to walk on due to the albedo effect, and the air shimmers with schlieren effects.

 

But a week or so after the first rains soak into the ground a whole new canopy of light green grass covers the ground, and the soil surface cools again. I’ve seen this in the Amazon Basin and in Australia, where my Aboriginal clan has burned the land for 60,000 years to fertilize this year’s grass with the ashes of last year’s grass, so the herbivores can proliferate.

[Tom Goreau]

Sorry not to have been clear, I was referring only to that last paper you posted separately with Biochar featured prominently in the title, but not, alas, in the contents.

 

To be sure there are many measurements of Biochar effects on growth (around 10 chapters in a book I edited), but few balancing the net carbon storage benefits to albedo effects and the many factors that locally affect the outcome.

 

Following deforestation most poor tropical soils are very pale in comparison to the dark evergreen jungle they replaced. These albedo heat effects are probably less than the deforestation loss of tree transpiration, pumping latent heat straight from the soil into the atmosphere.

 

I’m more worried about the albedo effects of all the black carbon soot from coal burners in China, India, Indonesia, Russia, eastern Europe, etc. that forms a black blanket on top of northern hemisphere mountain glaciers, Greenland, and Iceland. The black carbon sits on top of the melting ice, getting thicker and darker as new soot lands on top. Black carbon acceleration of melting is one of very many things IPCC failed to consider.

 

From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 at 2:06 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Paul Anderson <psan...@ilstu.edu>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, Albert Bates <alb...@thefarm.org>
Subject: Re: Misleading paper: Neither Ocean Algae Nor Biochar!

Hi Tom,

I don't know which paper you are referring to.  I provided several papers as examples.  Method sections are detailed and clear, and do not involve only applying to cover the surface.  The charcoal production method and provenance are clearly described.  The charcoal is mixed into the soil.  I am copy pasting several examples:

From the Materials and Methods section of (L Genesio et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014025):

"A randomized block experiment with four replicates was
done in plots of 25 m2 each with three treatments: control
(C), biochar at a rate of 30 t ha-1 (B30) and biochar at a
rate of 60 t ha-1 (B60). Biochar was applied manually, before
crop sowing and incorporated in the top 10 cm with a rotary
hoeing tillage."

From (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12726−12734):

"Albedo Impact of Biochar Application. 2.2.1. Laboratory
Soil Albedo Measurements. The following study was
carried out: 16 wet soil samples (four treatments with four
replicates of each treatment) were taken from a biochar field
trial near Donndorf in Northern Bavaria [49°56′0.02″N,
11°31′15.77″E] on January 26, 2012 (see Supporting
Information (SI) Figure S1). The A horizon of the field site
consists mainly of sandy silt (Us) and of very sandy clay (Ls4).
On the East side of the test field, the parent material is sand
stone. In SI Table S.1, the different treatment volumes which
had been already tilled 10 cm deep into the arable soil in July
2010 are described. The biochar used in the treatments of the
field trial (application rate 31.5 Mg ha−1) was produced from
wood in a slow pyrolysis plant by the company CarbonTerra in

Duttenstein, Germany. The soil samples were taken from the
soil surface (0−5 cm) of four randomly chosen sample sites of
the respective treatments forming 4-fold replications, filled in
plastic bags and transported to the micrometeorological
laboratory of the University of Bayreuth. The albedo of the
field trial soils samples was measured twice: One measurement
per sample was carried out at the original water content of the
soil samples. Subsequently, these soil samples were modestly
dried in a drying oven at a temperature around 60 °C for 90
min, followed by a second soil albedo measurement of each
sample. In addition to the albedo measurements, the
gravimetric water content of each soil sample was analyzed.
The albedo of a second series of dry soil samples from a pot
trial set up in the year 2009 (see Schulz et al. 201219) was
analyzed in the laboratory as well to study the impact of very
high biochar and compost applications on the soil albedo. The
control treatment of this series consists of washed sand from
the Kiesgrube ZAPF, Weidenberg, Germany. Three further
treatments are based on very high biochar and compost
amendments to the washed sand as described in SI Table S2.
The char used in the washed sand samples (application rates
23.5 and 93.8 Mg ha−1 in two different treatments) was
produced from hardwood by the charcoal producer Köhlerei
Wiesener in Rohr, Austria in a traditional charcoal kiln.
For a full description of the measurement procedure, the
uncertainties related to the measurement procedure, and the
statistical method used to analyze the results, see the SI for this
article.
2.2.2."

From the SI of (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12726−12734):

"For a detailed description of the pot trial set up in 2009, see Schulz et al. 2012 2 13 . The treatments of the 14 pot trial had been used for greenhouse cultivation experiments for a period of two years before they 15 were used for the albedo measurements"

Schulz et al 2012:

"Biochar and compost application rates were set up on the basis of previous lettuce pot and field researches [12, 35– 39]. In detail, data reported by Carter et al. [35] showed that 50 and 150 g kg−1 rice-husk biochar application rate led to a highly positive effect on lettuce growth in compost fertilized and unfertilized soils, respectively. Based on this finding, in the present study, biochar and compost were supplied at an application rate of 65 g and 50 g per kg of dry soil, respectively. After mixing, the pots were filled in order to ensure the same soil bulk density. "

Best,

Ye

[Ye Tao]

Hi Tom,

A moderately high application rate at 50 t per hectare applied over the entire, 10% of the Earth's surface area that is agricultural land leads to removing 175 Gton of carbon from the atmosphere, 20% of the CO2_atmExcess + CO2_oceanExcess. 

1) Are there studies on the impact of 250 t per hectare application?
2) Is 250 t per hectare generally good for all agricultural cultivars?
3) How many years does it take to produce 1140 Gton of char (70% of which is carbon)?
4) What is the LCA for the equipment needed for production at full scale at rate?
5) What about permanent microbiome community shift impacts, in addition to the albedo impact through surface and particles?

In spite of the all its wondrous properties, fundamental technical limitations guarantee that biochar will play only a minor role in climate mitigation over century time scales.  Over the next 2 critical decades, it will remain negligible.

Best,

Ye

On 12/16/2022 6:30 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:

Biochar is a resource to be efficiently recycled amplifying biomass and carbon storage, not a waste product to be buried where the sun doesn’t shine.

 

From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 at 3:57 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Paul Anderson <psan...@ilstu.edu>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, Albert Bates <alb...@thefarm.org>, Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Misleading paper: Neither Ocean Algae Nor Biochar!

HI Tom,

Upwelling of latent heat is not as efficient as upwelling shortwave at escaping from the Earth.  The latter escapes the TOA with 70-80% efficiency.  The former, 30-40%.  That land use change involving forest-to-agricultural land conversion contributes negligibly, and slightly negatively, to the over all energy imbalance is well-documented in the literature and the IPCC.

Coming back to the topic of biochar.  The best way, and the safest way is to dispose of it is in deep pits, perhaps former coal mines, and cover with impermeable mirrored sheeting when filled.

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994246CE95199233FFEAC93DDE69%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Ye Tao]

[Tom Goreau]

Biochar is a resource to be efficiently recycled amplifying biomass and carbon storage, not a waste product to be buried where the sun doesn’t shine.

 

From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 at 3:57 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Paul Anderson <psan...@ilstu.edu>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, Albert Bates <alb...@thefarm.org>, Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Misleading paper: Neither Ocean Algae Nor Biochar!

HI Tom,

Upwelling of latent heat is not as efficient as upwelling shortwave at escaping from the Earth.  The latter escapes the TOA with 70-80% efficiency.  The former, 30-40%.  That land use change involving forest-to-agricultural land conversion contributes negligibly, and slightly negatively, to the over all energy imbalance is well-documented in the literature and the IPCC.

Coming back to the topic of biochar.  The best way, and the safest way is to dispose of it is in deep pits, perhaps former coal mines, and cover with impermeable mirrored sheeting when filled.

Best,

Ye

On 12/16/2022 2:41 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994246CE95199233FFEAC93DDE69%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Ye Tao]

HI Tom,

Upwelling of latent heat is not as efficient as upwelling shortwave at escaping from the Earth.  The latter escapes the TOA with 70-80% efficiency.  The former, 30-40%.  That land use change involving forest-to-agricultural land conversion contributes negligibly, and slightly negatively, to the over all energy imbalance is well-documented in the literature and the IPCC.

Coming back to the topic of biochar.  The best way, and the safest way is to dispose of it is in deep pits, perhaps former coal mines, and cover with impermeable mirrored sheeting when filled.

Best,

Ye

On 12/16/2022 2:41 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994246CE95199233FFEAC93DDE69%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Ye Tao]

Dear colleagues,

First, let me clearly state that the fact that anthropogenic carbon drawdown is not scalable does not reduce the merit of biochar as both an adaptation measure and a long-term solution towards renewable liquid fuel.  However, it is wrong to classify and promote biochar as a climate mitigation measure for small-scale applications, due to insufficient CROI, and albedo penalty when applied to surfaces, including build structures.  To merit as a valid mitigation measure, any candidate method must demonstrate CROI>>1000.  Biochar is a factor 3-4 too inefficient when abedo penulty and ocean outgasing are taken into account.

More generally, there are two major points that I hope you would eventually take the time they deserve to think about: 

1) This is a constrained optimization problem.  No approach comes for free.  Adding different approaches together when dealing with the climate crisis does NOT increase our chances for success.   In fact, because human civilization is operating under severe constraints in time, energy, financial resources, and material resources, any diversion of resources towards a less-than-ideal solution reduces the overall impact for temperature mitigation.    All resources need to be invested in the ideal approach, or at least in approaches with CROI>>1000.

2) All methods for carbon drawdown by human interventions are slow compared to natural drawdown processes.   Therefore, the incremental benefit, relative to what nature provides for free, of drawing down carbon using an approach such as DAC or biochar is negligible compared to what nature is already doing, especially over the next 50 years to a century, when natural rates are high (the fast exponential component of natural CO2 drawdown: dissolution into the oceans), and ramping up of anthropogenic approaches are slow.

Best,

Ye

On 12/17/2022 8:46 AM, Albert Bates wrote:

Dear Ye,

I recommend you read Kathleen Draper's and my 2018 book, Burn: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change.

While the 175 GtC estimate you give is quite low (50t/ha is high for a one-time application but low for cumulative and the estimate has neglected forested areas, parks, verges and lawns), I would agree that soil application of biochar may only be 5% of its full potential.

So, for instance, next year in Tennessee we are pouring a country lane with cold mix biochar substituting 100% for asphalt. That will require 300 tons of locally produced biochar. Overall, the greatest potential market, and likely most profitable for producers, will be in construction aggregates (about 48.8 GtCO2e/y).

I believe all 5 of those questions you ask are answered in the peer-review literature published to date.

In Burn, we concluded that although biochar "can go much further than might have been thought, [it] still cannot get us all the way" to the requisite drawdown (which we estimated at ~2.5 trillion tons CO2e GHG, factoring for ocean equilibrium feedback). Rather it is a valuable part of a suite of tools.

Cordially,

Albert

--

[Tom Goreau]

Paul and Ron can best answer many of these questions, but 250 tons per hectare is enormous even for industrial chemical agriculture operations. Biochar has many essential contributions to make, and no one method will be sufficient by itself, so why discount or reject the rest?

[Robert Chris]

Hi Albert

You say that biochar 'is a valuable part of a suite of tools'.  What does 'valuable' mean?  Do you have some sense of how much of the 2.5Tt/CO2e could be sequestered by biochar by when? 

Regards

Robert

On 17/12/2022 13:46, Albert Bates wrote:

Dear Ye,

I recommend you read Kathleen Draper's and my 2018 book, Burn: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change.

While the 175 GtC estimate you give is quite low (50t/ha is high for a one-time application but low for cumulative and the estimate has neglected forested areas, parks, verges and lawns), I would agree that soil application of biochar may only be 5% of its full potential.

So, for instance, next year in Tennessee we are pouring a country lane with cold mix biochar substituting 100% for asphalt. That will require 300 tons of locally produced biochar. Overall, the greatest potential market, and likely most profitable for producers, will be in construction aggregates (about 48.8 GtCO2e/y).

I believe all 5 of those questions you ask are answered in the peer-review literature published to date.

In Burn, we concluded that although biochar "can go much further than might have been thought, [it] still cannot get us all the way" to the requisite drawdown (which we estimated at ~2.5 trillion tons CO2e GHG, factoring for ocean equilibrium feedback). Rather it is a valuable part of a suite of tools.

Cordially,

Albert

--

[Albert Bates]

Dear Ye,

I recommend you read Kathleen Draper's and my 2018 book, Burn: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change.

While the 175 GtC estimate you give is quite low (50t/ha is high for a one-time application but low for cumulative and the estimate has neglected forested areas, parks, verges and lawns), I would agree that soil application of biochar may only be 5% of its full potential.

So, for instance, next year in Tennessee we are pouring a country lane with cold mix biochar substituting 100% for asphalt. That will require 300 tons of locally produced biochar. Overall, the greatest potential market, and likely most profitable for producers, will be in construction aggregates (about 48.8 GtCO2e/y).

I believe all 5 of those questions you ask are answered in the peer-review literature published to date.

In Burn, we concluded that although biochar "can go much further than might have been thought, [it] still cannot get us all the way" to the requisite drawdown (which we estimated at ~2.5 trillion tons CO2e GHG, factoring for ocean equilibrium feedback). Rather it is a valuable part of a suite of tools.

Cordially,

Albert

--

[Robert Chris]

Hi Tom and Ye

Apologies.  I repeatedly fail to take my own advice and refrain from making in electronic messages.  My assumption that my humour is obvious and immediately recognisable as such, is almost always proven to be wrong, as it was in this case.

When I said that 'There's absolutely no limit to the scalability of smoke and mirrors', I expected that the next sentence in brackets would make it clear that it was a play on words.  Just to be clear, I was not referring to 'smoke' and 'mirrors', but to 'smoke and mirrors'.  The climate change discourse is replete with smoke and mirrors, as I suspect you'll all agree.

Regards

Robert

[Ye Tao]

Are we sure we want to build more roads and put more EVs on the road?   Why not start by importing Chinese trains to enable dismantling the dysfunctional highway system?

Applications of climate solutions should not be targeting existing, nonessential infrastructure.

Ye

On 12/17/2022 11:40 AM, Albert Bates wrote:

Dominic Wolff, Jim Amonette, Branson Griscolm, Pete Smith, and many others have been exploring this topic for many years. Results are all over the map but biochar soil amendment contribution is in the 1-6 GtCO2e range. Nearly all studies confine themselves entirely to crop residue feedstocks and soil applications, which as I indicated, is very limiting. See, e.g.:

Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017)

Griscom, B.W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126 (2020).

Lu, Nan, et al. "Biophysical and economic constraints on China’s natural climate solutions." Nature Climate Change 12.9 (2022): 847-853.

Smith, Pete, et al. "Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions." Nature Climate Change 6.1 (2016): 42-50.

Soil use of biochar from crop waste is not insignificant. The Lu paper in Nature Climate Change puts NCS potential at 0.6 GtCO2e/y 2020-2030 at costs of $10-100/CO2ton, just for China.

Contrast that with the 0.63 Gt of asphalt mix China could be replacing with biochar (and pyrolyzed wastes such as plastics) annually. At 2.5 coefficient C to CO2 (factoring LCA), that would be 1.6 GtCO2e/y just in China. Road surface biochar cold mix is superior in every way to the fossil bitumen mix, including lower maintenance cost over 20 years, so it would be a money-saving conversion. And then there is the road underlay, verge water filtration media, etc.

The global asphalt market was valued at USD 71.3 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach USD 110.8 billion by 2026.

Asphalt is but one of hundreds of profitable biochar markets.

The limiting factor is feedstock supply, which returns the discussion to ocean algae.

- Albert

--

Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen

[Albert Bates]

Dominic Wolff, Jim Amonette, Branson Griscolm, Pete Smith, and many others have been exploring this topic for many years. Results are all over the map but biochar soil amendment contribution is in the 1-6 GtCO2e range. Nearly all studies confine themselves entirely to crop residue feedstocks and soil applications, which as I indicated, is very limiting. See, e.g.:

Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017)

Griscom, B.W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126 (2020).

Lu, Nan, et al. "Biophysical and economic constraints on China’s natural climate solutions." Nature Climate Change 12.9 (2022): 847-853.

Smith, Pete, et al. "Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions." Nature Climate Change 6.1 (2016): 42-50.

Soil use of biochar from crop waste is not insignificant. The Lu paper in Nature Climate Change puts NCS potential at 0.6 GtCO2e/y 2020-2030 at costs of $10-100/CO2ton, just for China.

Contrast that with the 0.63 Gt of asphalt mix China could be replacing with biochar (and pyrolyzed wastes such as plastics) annually. At 2.5 coefficient C to CO2 (factoring LCA), that would be 1.6 GtCO2e/y just in China. Road surface biochar cold mix is superior in every way to the fossil bitumen mix, including lower maintenance cost over 20 years, so it would be a money-saving conversion. And then there is the road underlay, verge water filtration media, etc.

The global asphalt market was valued at USD 71.3 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach USD 110.8 billion by 2026.

Asphalt is but one of hundreds of profitable biochar markets.

The limiting factor is feedstock supply, which returns the discussion to ocean algae.

- Albert

On 12/17/22 10:57 AM, Robert Chris wrote:

--

Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen

[Robert Chris]

Here's the one line version.  So long as we frame climate change as a profit opportunity, we're doomed.

Regards

Robert

On 17/12/2022 18:17, Robert Chris wrote:

Oh dear!  Ye, you've totally missed the point.  Haven't you yet grasped that the purpose of all responses to climate change is to preserve our existing global socio-economic structures and support continued economic growth into the indefinite future.  On the other hand, perhaps you haven't, in which case you're proposing a radical realignment in wealth and power structures.

Of course, I know you get it.  The real challenge is how we get an orderly transition from here to there, or even whether that is possible.

Biochar certainly has potential to provide local benefits, but the wider socio-economic implications of scaling it to multi-gigatonnes make it most unlikely that it has any significant role to play in averting a climate catastrophe and the ensuing challenges that that will present humanity.

IMHO, this thread on biochar illustrates a widespread failure to recognise the seriousness of our predicament and that while technological innovations may have a meaningful role in temporarily deferring a climate catastrophe, this will be nugatory if humanity does not grasp the urgent need to undergo a root and branch change in its relationship with planetary resources.  That's the only way to deliver planetary restoration or a healthy planet.  If we don't fundamentally change our behaviour, no amount of technology, whether it's pyrolysis or stratospheric aerosol injection, will save us.  Let's have a discussion about how that's going to happen anytime soon!

Regards

Robert

[Robert Chris]

Oh dear!  Ye, you've totally missed the point.  Haven't you yet grasped that the purpose of all responses to climate change is to preserve our existing global socio-economic structures and support continued economic growth into the indefinite future.  On the other hand, perhaps you haven't, in which case you're proposing a radical realignment in wealth and power structures.

Of course, I know you get it.  The real challenge is how we get an orderly transition from here to there, or even whether that is possible.

Biochar certainly has potential to provide local benefits, but the wider socio-economic implications of scaling it to multi-gigatonnes make it most unlikely that it has any significant role to play in averting a climate catastrophe and the ensuing challenges that that will present humanity.

IMHO, this thread on biochar illustrates a widespread failure to recognise the seriousness of our predicament and that while technological innovations may have a meaningful role in temporarily deferring a climate catastrophe, this will be nugatory if humanity does not grasp the urgent need to undergo a root and branch change in its relationship with planetary resources.  That's the only way to deliver planetary restoration or a healthy planet.  If we don't fundamentally change our behaviour, no amount of technology, whether it's pyrolysis or stratospheric aerosol injection, will save us.  Let's have a discussion about how that's going to happen anytime soon!

Regards

Robert

On 17/12/2022 17:49, Ye Tao wrote:

[Robert Chris]

Typo  - making [jokes].

Regards

Robert

[Robert Chris]

Hi Albert

As you say 'The limiting factor is feedstock supply, which returns the discussion to ocean algae.'  That's seems like a sensible place to start. 

Given the ratio of dry biomass to C in the form of biochar is about 2.5, sequestering 1GtC requires 2.5Gt dry biomass.  Equivalent figures for CO2 are a ratio of about 0.7, requiring 700Mt biomass for 1GtCO2.   If biochar is to make a meaningful contribution to GGR, I'd suggest we need to be talking in terms of at least 1GtC or 2.5Gt dry biomass.  Dry algae is about 25% its wet weight, so if we're looking to the oceans for most of the biomass in order to relieve pressure on land use, that's 10Gt of wet harvested algae.  It might be interesting to have an engineer look at the practical implications of farming ocean algae at that scale bearing in mind that global coal annual coal production is about 8Gt and crude oil is less than 5Gt.  Sand and gravel is more like 35Gt so the scale is not off the scale, but we didn't get to 35Gt in a couple of decades and it was all done on land.  There are also some important questions about how the algae is dried and whether that's done using natural or manufactured energy.  This also requires consideration of the climatic effect of 7.5Gt of water vapour being released into the atmosphere (assuming 1GtC sequestered).

It is difficult to reach sound conclusions about any climatically significant technology without doing the numbers including thinking through the entire supply chain logistics.

Regards

Robert

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

Robert, I’m sure you’re right but it isn’t changing the behaviour of 8 billion people an even bigger challenge than avoiding the tipping points we are likely now already entering?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b3bc73a1-d8af-1fb3-cfcd-a4acbd9417e6%40gmail.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Robert:   (note,  my server rejected the address for Dr.  Tao - which I have used quite a bit, but I had to remove for this message.. 

Thanks for this switch to biochar from ocean biomass.  A good bit happening there in early research.  

I think we will see both pyrolysis and biochar on land and also use of HTC.  There is higher conversion efficiency with ocean production using HTC (hydro thermal carbonization).  The HTC technology is moving a little slower than biochar, which started with the impetus from Terra Preta studies.   But it seems both biochar and HTC must be considered when harvesting marine biomass (fresh or saline waters)

This fairly recent article deals with micro algae - which seems harder to me than kelp, but maybe not:

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/64936/Cattod%20HTC_rev2.pdf?sequence=4.    (A non-fee version of one fairly recent paper)

Here is another: 

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/64936/Cattod%20HTC_rev2.pdf?sequence=4

I hope you and others can add to this list.  Googling showed a lot more today on HTC than the last time I looked.  But clearly our several was of making biochar can all start with wet salty biomass as well - negating Dr. Tao’s pessimism.re land area.

Ron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bf2e4679-ed4d-bd73-4991-d620326ac468%40gmail.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Robert:   (note,  my server rejected the address for Dr.  Tao - which I have used quite a bit, but I had to remove for this message.. 

Thanks for this switch to biochar from ocean biomass.  A good bit happening there in early research.  

I think we will see both pyrolysis and biochar on land and also use of HTC.  There is higher conversion efficiency with ocean production using HTC (hydro thermal carbonization).  The HTC technology is moving a little slower than biochar, which started with the impetus from Terra Preta studies.   But it seems both biochar and HTC must be considered when harvesting marine biomass (fresh or saline waters)

This fairly recent article deals with micro algae - which seems harder to me than kelp, but maybe not:

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/64936/Cattod%20HTC_rev2.pdf?sequence=4.    (A non-fee version of one fairly recent paper)

Here is another: 

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/64936/Cattod%20HTC_rev2.pdf?sequence=4

I hope you and others can add to this list.  Googling showed a lot more today on HTC than the last time I looked.  But clearly our several was of making biochar can all start with wet salty biomass as well - negating Dr. Tao’s pessimism.re land area.

Ron

On Dec 17, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bf2e4679-ed4d-bd73-4991-d620326ac468%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Clive, I suspect the Pareto Principle will apply here, so we only need to change the behaviour of 20% of the people, or 1.6 billion.  Of these 1.6 billion, the great majority of whom live in the developed world, most are rule takers rather than rule makers.  How many rule makers are there?  100, 1,000, 10,000?  That begins to look much more doable.  But unfortunately this happy band of brothers is very powerful and adept at protecting its wealth and power.  The likelihood of getting those specific individuals to see the light and change their ways is (IMHO) remote.  Do we have time to wait for natural causes to remove them?  I don't think so.  And even if we did, they also have a proven track record of spawning clones that retain the reins of power from one generation to another.   A way has to be found of replacing this cadre of reactionary vested interests sooner rather than later.

Although you don't actually say this, there's a possible implication in your short sentence that avoiding tipping points is the solution to climate change.  Avoid the tipping points, job done, now let's get on with BAU.  This framing of climate change as a problem with a solution is dangerously misleading.  Climate change is perhaps the paradigmatic 'wicked' problem.  With each intervention, wicked problems morph into something different, they don't have solutions.  They are situations that have to be continuously managed.  The essence of the Anthropocene is that we now have to step up to that responsibility.  We have to find our way through trial and error because we have no historical precedents appropriate to a challenge on this scale.

There's no guarantee that we'll negotiate these shifting sands successfully.  That might be a problem for humanity but not for the planet.  If our excessive drawdown of planetary resources isn't stopped, we'll go the way of all other species that have exhausted the resources available to them.  Our number will be dramatically reduced, or in the extreme, we'll become extinct.

Technological interventions to postpone tipping points simply buy us some time to get our house in order.  We must not fall into the trap of believing that those interventions are all that's needed.

Regards

Robert

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

I'm not so pessimistic.  Refreezing the Arctic will quench a number of tipping points.  This probably needs to be coupled with some cooling of the Antarctic.  Then, with a bit of global cooling: we can save the Amazon (tipping to savannah at 2.3C or 2.4C according to a top Brazilian scientist speaking at the AGU meeting last week); we can reverse the retreat of Himalayan and other glaciers; we can reverse climate change; and we can slow sea level rise to an acceptable rate as it was in the last century (~2cm per decade).  We could get the planet back to the state it was in 1980, when most of the dangerous trends started to show signs of acceleration.

But you are right about the rich wicked people in control.  They have taken over control of the IPCC as pointed out by Kyle Kimball (see attached - I highly recommend it).  Most people think of the IPCC as the font of all truth about climate change and how to deal with it - how wrong they are!  They have persuaded the US government that the Arctic is there to be exploited.  If we can get the US government to realise it is in the interest of their country (let alone the rest of the world) to refreeze the Arctic, then they could back SAI and SRM to do the job.  And they could even apply SAI by themselves from Alaska and perhaps Maine to cool down the whole of the Arctic evenly (assuming there's a steady eastward movement of stratospheric air, along with the slow poleward movement from Brewer-Dobson circulation).  The US has the stratotankers to do the job.

Cheers, John

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

Robert, I agree with everything you said.

 

As I see it, our problem is one of time, and therefore setting priorities. Currently we cannot even address the looming tipping points because most of the rulemakers are under the superstition that all is needed is emissions reduction, and now some carbon dioxide drawdown. They fail to recognise the utility of cooling by tropospheric aerosols, notably low-lying clouds, the loss of aerosol cooling from the reduction of pollution, and the strong likelihood that the methane sink can be enhanced (and numerous other important climate insights and promising proposals). At least two papers have been published recently explaining how the loss of NOx from reduced flights during Covid led to an acceleration in atmospheric methane concentration.

 

Buying time, assuming currently proposed methods turn out to be safe and effective, would enable some of the more difficult problems to be addressed in addition.

 

Clive

[Ye Tao]

this email just got delivered to my inbox for some reason...

Technically, the required CO2 is readily available from biochar CH4 combustion, which can be sourced at a small fraction of the energy and infrastructural requirement compared to environmental extraction methods (dilute CO2 or CH4). Biochar, scaled, could completely satisfy the carbon sourcing needs of a future carbon-neutral, sustainable (1-5 Gton eCO2 per year) civilization.

Anyways, let's first make sure we survive the near term, shall we;)  How?  Try our best to prevent the ongoing, capital-driven diversion of limited resources away from SRM, to scams like DAC and ocean-based capture.  People working on these are actively contributing to making the medium term irrelevant. 

The sane person would probably set priorities and rally behind SRM, as if their life depended on it.   Guess what! It really does!  

YE

On 12/12/2022 9:45 AM, 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:

 … over decades CDR will become an essential part of planetary stabilisation and prosperity.

More ancillary food for thought on the sustained near term, medium term and long term need for CDR and SRM … 

C.O.B. Tuesday - "Why The Number One Global ESG Goal Should Be Energy Surplus" Featuring Rob West, Thunder Said Energy

Bit.ly/COBTues23Nov22

Climate (Pod)Notes - It's energy, stupid.

Bit.ly/PodNotes9Dec22

We may have to acknowledge that future humans will live in a "bionic biosphere” in which “extracting" CO2 and CH4 won’t be any more unusual than extracting copper, silver, gypsum, gravel, etc. Just one of many fundamental required normal activities of modern civilization. 

Just a thought,

Doug Grandt

On Dec 11, 2022, at 6:16 PM, <rob...@rtulip.net> <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Hi Ye

 

My reason for sharing this paper was to highlight that it is reasonable to imagine rapid increase in Carbon Dioxide Removal, with conversion of CDR into a profitable industry based on production of valuable commodities.  

 

I agree with your view that CDR increase cannot affect the climate in the short term.  However, over decades CDR will become an essential part of planetary stabilisation and prosperity.

 

When I mentioned carbon fibre I meant flexible plastic polymers, my mistake.  The fabrics need to be flexible to bend with oceanic forces, not rigid.  Possible materials and methods for ocean algae production will only gradually develop.   I think it should be possible to have no structural metal.

 

I hope first steps can involve building prototypes for river algae production and tidal pumping.  These should be viable inventions in themselves, and will show whether the larger ocean vision is viable.  Converting the fertilizer in the Mississippi River into algae and removing it for sale as biochar would reduce the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Regarding the problem you mention of material degradation at sea, I think it would be necessary for the plastic fabric of a photobioreactor to be constantly replaced like skin, building a new layer from underneath while the outer layer is removed for recycling.  This maintenance system could be largely automated, I imagine with something like robot snails.

 

My attached diagram of ocean floor HTL that you mention is a futuristic imaginative vision of what might be possible if this technology works.  My view is that simplicity will be a key to such technology, aiming to construct the whole apparatus from seamless fabric like a gastrointestinal canal.

 

Regards

Robert

 

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ye Tao
Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2022 7:51 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [prag] Re: Ocean Algae Paper

 

Hi Robert,

I believe it is important to really crank out the numbers.  Carbon fiber has some of the highest embodied energies, higher compared to plastics and stainless steel on a per-weight basis, comparable to that of aluminum and X10 compared to glass on volumetric bases.   Unless your membrane was sturdy over decades with a sub mm thickness, it is unlikely to scale to 1% ocean surface area. Degradation studies seem just starting to be published and most likely incompatible with decadal, maintenance-free deployment necessary to achieve the required scale.

Adding on all the associated structures and equipment, channeling the totality of global resources to build the system like what you are describing could perhaps reach a steady state within an order of magnitude of 0.1% ocean surface area over 1 century.  And one will also need to convince the ocean plastics people... 

Best,

Ye

 

On 12/10/2022 7:58 PM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

Hi Ye

 

My proposal, which may or may not be feasible, is based on the waterbag flexible barge concept pioneered by Terry Spragg, for a system that has no solid metal structure, but rather is a fabric membrane that is part of the ocean wave, made of carbon fibre sufficiently strong to withstand ocean forces, including with ability to sink during storms if needed, with fresh water chambers for buoyancy.  By starting in rivers and then sheltered bays, an ocean algae photobioreactor system can gradually work out optimal low cost methods to expand into more difficult environments.

 

The overall plan is that the system makes almost all its own resources, using algae to make the carbon fabric for the containing bag.  As a result the system sequesters carbon in its structure.  Designs based on marine life such as whales and jellyfish can use wave energy for propulsion and pumping.  By using deep ocean hydrothermal liquefaction to separate aqueous and hydrocarbon streams, this method can produce fertilizer and carbon products from the massive billion cubic kilometre resource of deep ocean water, funding its own expansion, while also drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at large scale.  The proposal is for a highly net negative carbon footprint, using the area, energy and resources of the world ocean to support construction methods that have no emissions to make a product that returns the carbon levels toward a stable balance.

 

Regards

 

Robert

 

From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> 
Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2022 12:36 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ocean Algae Paper

 

Hi Robert,

In estimating material requirement, one needs to consider what mineral, metals, and plastics go into a reactor of the type depicted in your Figure 5. 

I would imagine it optimistic to achieve a projected 2D thickness less than 1cm in thickness, assuming container side wall of ~4mm, say made of stainless steel for moderate structural integrity and corrosion resistance.   Adding in the complexity in Figure 6 makes the engineering more challenging.  Have you or anyone else calculated the total required materials and compare against global annual productions, and reserves.  What about the associated emissions making and maintaining these infrastructural materials?

Thanks,

Ye

On 12/10/2022 6:45 AM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

Hi Ye

 

Re your questions on my ocean algae paper, Sections 3.5 Potential Ocean Algae Production Methods: River Deployment and 3.6 Eventual Oceanic Scale describe a gradual expansion path.  The 10% coverage of the world ocean would mainly be macroalgae, with microalgae to follow as a more intensive method.  The 10% number came from Ocean Foresters (actually 9%, cited at footnote 103) and was endorsed by Tim Flannery as a reasonable goal for macroalgae.

 

You ask about materials to cover 0.1% of the world ocean. That is 361,000 km².  The only way such scale or larger could be deployed is if this method of carbon conversion becomes commercially profitable so that expansion pays for itself. My calculation in the paper is that given the algae yields achieved in the pilot OMEGA project averaged about 15 grams dry weight per square metre per day, scaled up to about 1% of the world ocean this output rate would utilise 50 Gt of CO₂ per year.

 

If we humans decide to stabilise our planet, ocean algae production might be the best way to do it. It would take a long time though. In the near term albedo should be the focus.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ye Tao
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2022 8:08 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com>; 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

 

Hi Robert T,

I think it is advisable to add a small section estimating the material feasibility of floating OMEGA infrastructure on not 10% but 0.1% of the ocean surface.

You might be surprised.

Best,

Ye

On 12/9/2022 10:09 PM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

Thanks for all the comments.  It would be interesting to think about how to get this discussion before a broader audience.

 

I would like to see the AGU statement include the following point.

 

The only action that could mitigate warming in this decade is to brighten the planet by increasing albedo reflectivity to cool the climate and balance the warming from emissions.  The climate goal should shift from Net Zero Emissions to Net Zero Heating, balancing warming and cooling as equal and opposite forcings, with the cooling delivered primarily by albedo enhancement through solar geoengineering while emissions continue.  Converting the excess ~trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases in the air into non-warming forms and cutting new emissions will then be a task over decades and centuries.   Cutting new emissions is marginal to climate stability in the near term. Decarbonising the economy is a secondary climate security factor compared to preventing global tipping points such as the melting of the poles, which can only be slowed by brightening the planet.  Just as the USA successfully sent and returned a man to and from the Moon in the 1960s, the world today should commit to refreezing the Arctic with ice cover expanding by 2030.

 

In response to the view of Robert Chris and Ye Tao that CDR cannot be scaled up, my view is that algae farms on ten percent of the world ocean could remove all the excess CO2 from the air, converting it to soil, biomass, fuel, materials, etc to drive an abundant sustainable global economy and ecology.  That claim still has something of a science fiction quality about it.  I expanded upon it in the attached unpublished paper, imagining what would actually be involved in scaling carbon conversion to tens of gigatonnes per year.  Assessing and commencing such a program would take decades to have cooling effect, which is why brightening should start with a Moonshot announcement as soon as possible of an ambitious polar freezing result by 2030.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2022 8:48 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

 

Hi Robert

The extract below from your comments on the AGU draft highlights a central issue that needs to be carefully examined and justified on the basis of the science, both the physical and social science.

First, this statement is patently not a fact.  I shall not use CI as it's not a useful term insofar as it combines CDR and AE, two very different types of climate intervention both in terms of methods and effects.  Their effects are so different that your statement that one can substitute for the other needs clarification.

Your statement that it would be perfectly possible to scale GHG removal to larger than current emissions is total conjecture.  It would certainly be nice if that were so, but presently there's no known means of doing it, and there are some good theoretical reasons to suggest that it's not likely, and maybe not even possible.

Climate change is the consequence of the earth's energy imbalance (EEI).  However you shuffle the climate cards, the climate won't be stabilised until the EEI=0.  But this is not simply a case of net incoming SWR equalling net outgoing LWR.  Imagine as an extreme case just to illustrate the point, that we accumulated vast amounts of GHGs by burning fossil fuels to our hearts' content, and compensated for this cosy blanket by shutting out half incoming insolation.  EEI=0 but that would everywhere produce a very different local climate that would have devastating consequences for life all around the globe.

Prudence suggests that we should return much closer to pre-industrial GHGs and not have to interfere with insolation.  AE should be undertaken to the minimum extent possible just to keep surface temperature within acceptable bounds and crucially avoid many meters of sea level rise.  Decarbonisation of energy and the atmosphere should also be done as much as possible.  It's a timing problem.  The decarbonisation doesn't work fast enough and the AE has to bridge the gap.  But if you don't do the decarbonisation, the gap becomes larger and larger and eventually becomes unmanageable.

The reason the gap becomes unmanageable has little to do with the science or the climate but everything to with geopolitics and the global economy.  The interests that become vested in AE become as powerful as the current fossil fuel sector, that as we know is more concerned about its bottom line than about climate change.  If there were a Holy Alliance between the fossil fuel sector and the AE sector, a world would be created that would most probably be utterly dystopian.   It might not be of course.  Those controlling these vast global enterprises might be motivated by nothing but milk and kindness and concern for the welfare of all humanity.  Maybe they'd be run by religious orders.  That would remove all concerns about unfairness (irony alert!).

The bottom line is that none of emissions abatement, GGR and AE is sufficient, but all are necessary and together they might be sufficient if undertaken simultaneously at speed and scale.

Regards

Robert 

On 09/12/2022 01:50, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

The fact is, CI measures CAN substitute for emission reduction in the short term.  It would be perfectly possible to scale GHG removal over coming decades to larger than current emissions and allow emissions to continue, enabling a slower decarbonisation of the economy.  Similarly, it is possible to scale up solar geoengineering to achieve net zero heating while emissions continue. 

-- 
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/03ea01d90c44%24d2f28980%2478d79c80%24%40rtulip.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/9ca0514e-cc4c-2614-8878-0e3eaf1e3935%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/071065c2-44cd-5c66-d4b9-299922729842%40rowland.harvard.edu.

-- 
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/017e01d90db6%24a20e85d0%24e62b9170%24%40rtulip.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Fig 6.jpg>

--
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/98428B49-0429-4F17-91EA-A04A0BE85C18%40mac.com.

[Tom Goreau]

IPCC does not set policy, governments do!

 

IPCC generates the kind of output that is intended and desired by governments, blaming somebody else for the problems and evading any financial responsibility to undo them.

 

IPCC is a tool of governments to provide information, but governments edit its conclusions (especially Saudi Arabia and Russia on behalf of OPEC) to prevent any meaningful action, and governments set the terms of what IPCC advises them on.

 

Those terms are political, not scientific, so they are loaded with fatal flaws, deliberately ignoring long-term climate impacts by choosing arbitrary and fake short time horizons, magically discounting future climate and economic impacts to zero!

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

[Tom Goreau]

This is not a criticism of IPCC scientists, who are mostly doing the best they know how, but of how the process actually works.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0742532C-744A-441F-A403-431CA078C9E2%40globalcoral.org.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Ye

 

I agree with your viewpoint but consider that you sometimes express it in unclear ways.

 

In your email below you say we should “try our best to prevent the ongoing, capital-driven diversion of limited resources away from SRM, to scams like DAC and ocean-based capture.” 

 

The term ‘scam’ is inflammatory and in my view is incorrect for ocean-based capture.  I don’t follow DAC so have no comment on it except to say it may provide a useful algae CO2 feedstock.  Technologies should only be called scams when their proponents advance deliberate lies or resolutely ignore factual criticism.  I have not seen lies in the drawdown space, certainly not to the level seen in EV hype with the false claims that EVs can help keep warming below 1.5.

 

I don’t understand why you would describe the lack of funding for SRM as “capital-driven”.  The problem is primarily one of ideology, with the prevailing faith in emission reduction alone excluding all funding for a brighter planet on allegedly ethical grounds.  If this ideology could be contested in public by the argument that SRM is good, the capital for SRM would readily become available, especially if higher albedo could be argued to be in the political and economic interests of elites.  The phrase “capital-driven” is somewhat conspiratorial and lacking in evidence.

 

Your comment on Sunday 18 Dec alleging “the fact that anthropogenic carbon drawdown is not scalable” applies a contested view of facts, given that many people contend drawdown can be scaled up.  I think you need to qualify such comments by adding “in time”, or “fast enough”.  The danger of such assertions is that they generate division between SRM and CDR where every effort should be made to encourage alliance and cooperation.

 

My comment starting this thread was that the problem with drawdown is that it is too slow to prevent dangerous warming.  That does not imply the more rhetorical claims you have advanced which taken literally suggest drawdown is useless to mitigate climate change.  The potential drawdown timeframe is very important.  What is needed is for albedo enhancement to proceed alongside GHG drawdown.  The climate impacts of higher albedo can kick in rapidly, whereas drawdown can have no temperature effect for decades.  But we need to think in century time scale.  There is no benefit in needlessly attacking carbon drawdown just because it will make little difference to warming in our lifetimes.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

[John Nissen]

Hi Clive,,

Robert said on this thread:

"The emerging false popular consensus is that nothing can prevent overshoot of 1.5C. That view is only maintained through dogged deliberate denial toward albedo." 

Ye Tao replied:

Even if we had a global policy based on albedo enhancement, it would still be improbable, logistically, to prevent overshooting 1.5C.   SAI and MCB need, respectively, minimum 5-20 years of R&D with unlimited funding to have a chance of working at scale. MEER could work just in time, if and only if we had an immediate, globally coordinate measure to mandate digesting all of the world's plastic, glass, and aluminum waste for mirror production.

1.5C overshoot is locked in, and will be recorded within ~ the next 8 years.

I have looked at the research on SAI and enough R&D has been done to give confidence that immediate deployment at high latitude would not have any major side-effects.  Of course deployment would be closely monitored for signs of side-effects, expected or not.  And of course the deployment would be ramped up over several years, and global warming might well rise about 1.5C.  But the tipping points in the Arctic and Antarctic could be quenched. 

Meanwhile, cooling of other regions with MEER, surface albedo enhancement, MCB and other methods (perhaps including SAI) could proceed at pace, to help reduce the Earth's energy imbalance (EEI), reverse global warming, slow steric sea level rise (the SLR from ocean expansion) and sustain the Amazon (which could revert to savannah at 2.3C to 2.4C of global warming).

Cheers, John

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 8:58 AM Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

Ye

 

Given that the continents contain 10s of millions of gigatons of carbonates originally precipitated in the ocean, how do you justify saying that nature-based and ocean capture methods are a scam?

 

Or do you mean only some of these methods are scams?

 

Or do you mean none of these methods are sufficiently scalable on their own to work as silver bullets?

 

Clive

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ye Tao
Sent: 21 December 2022 06:43
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Ocean Algae Paper

 

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your comments.

A "scam" is a "dishonest scheme".  When a technological intervention is advertise to do something that it demonstrably cannot do, it becomes a scam.  Timescale is so fundamental that treating is as something different from material and energy scalability is simply wrong.

I take great issue when a technology that is demonstrably ineffective for climate mitigation are being promoted/justified on climate mitigation grounds.  This is the case for DAC, nature-based solutions, ocean-based capture methods, biochar, and many more.   Therefore, by definition, DAC, nature-based solutions, ocean-based capture methods, and biochar, as long as research groups and companies peddling them continue to use climate impact as a major justification, will continue to qualify as scam, and are appropriately described as such.

Many of the above have other benefits that do not involving curbing the climate trajectory.  Merit is acknowledged where merit is due.  One technology above that merits funding is biochar, for the purpose of biogas production.

There are only 2 things that can have a measurable climate impact: 1) SRM 2) globally-coordinated economic contraction while satisfying basic needs necessary for the pursuit of meaning.

Cheers,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7a6a44f8-62c3-f1b0-d15d-49b97fc415ca%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/083c01d9151a%24601963f0%24204c2bd0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your comments.

A "scam" is a "dishonest scheme".  When a technological intervention is advertise to do something that it demonstrably cannot do, it becomes a scam.  Timescale is so fundamental that treating is as something different from material and energy scalability is simply wrong.

I take great issue when a technology that is demonstrably ineffective for climate mitigation are being promoted/justified on climate mitigation grounds.  This is the case for DAC, nature-based solutions, ocean-based capture methods, biochar, and many more.   Therefore, by definition, DAC, nature-based solutions, ocean-based capture methods, and biochar, as long as research groups and companies peddling them continue to use climate impact as a major justification, will continue to qualify as scam, and are appropriately described as such.

Many of the above have other benefits that do not involving curbing the climate trajectory.  Merit is acknowledged where merit is due.  One technology above that merits funding is biochar, for the purpose of biogas production.

There are only 2 things that can have a measurable climate impact: 1) SRM 2) globally-coordinated economic contraction while satisfying basic needs necessary for the pursuit of meaning.

Cheers,

Ye

[Clive Elsworth]

Ye

 

Given that the continents contain 10s of millions of gigatons of carbonates originally precipitated in the ocean, how do you justify saying that nature-based and ocean capture methods are a scam?

 

Or do you mean only some of these methods are scams?

 

Or do you mean none of these methods are sufficiently scalable on their own to work as silver bullets?

 

Clive

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ye Tao

Sent: 21 December 2022 06:43

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7a6a44f8-62c3-f1b0-d15d-49b97fc415ca%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Clive,

Answers go your questions have been addressed in multiple emails I sent in this forum.  The key is kinetics and timescales.  In short, we don't have 10s to 100s of thousands of years to wait. 

Examples of previous emails include discussions of the multi-exponential, emission impulse response decay of CO2_atm.  It is advisable to think in terms of slopes and rates.  Rates are additive, such that k_total = k_nature + k_anthropogenic.  k_nature >> k_anthropogenic not matter what you do in the 21st century.    The incremental gain will be negligible. 

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/083c01d9151a%24601963f0%24204c2bd0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Comment on the AGU draft statement copied below.  I urge you to submit comments as well!

Best,

Ron

This statement is a welcome development and I commend you for helping to draft it.

I'd like  to support the draft and urge that it be made both more urgent and more inclusive of other Direct Climate Cooling methods in addition to SRM. I recommend that it be made more urgent as there is no other option to avoid increasing calamity in the short-run (at least several decades and possibly a century or more) until we are able to cut and draw down sufficient GHGs from the atmosphere and oceans to restore a stable climate and regenerate our ecosystem. I also recommend that it be more inclusive of other Direct Climate Cooling (DCC) methods, some of which have little to no risk and can, and should be, rolled out for assessment and deployment immediately.  In this sense greater inclusiveness in DCC methods points to the practicality of more urgent deployment of local and low-risk methods even as more global and higher-risk methods are researched and tested further. The draft mentions "Localized surface albedo modification" noting that they are "less studied" as a category of Climate Intervention but neglects to point out and urge that these and other low-risk and local DCC methods can and should be immediately (if found to be effective in pilots) deployed with little to no risk. For documentation of 18 different potential DCC methods (including but not exclusively SRM methods), see this final Healthy Planet Action Coalition statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit

A similar problem with (non-CDR) GHG reduction efforts is the  seemingly afterthought treatment of methane removal in the statement. Methods to  burn concentrated anthropogenic and natural methane releases are already included in GHG offset protocols like that of California: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program/compliance-offset-protocols/mine-methane-capture-project

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 10:16 PM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Leslie and Daniele,  

This statement is a welcome development and I commend you for helping to draft it!

 I have a question and a couple of comments:

Question: After rejoining the AGU, I've been searching through the AGU website and cannot find a place to submit comments? 

Comments: I'd like  to support the draft and urge that it be made both more urgent as (echoing Robert Chris' comment) there is no other option to avoid increasing calamity in the short-run, and more inclusive of other Direct Climate Cooling (DCC) methods some of which have little to no risk and can and should be rolled out for assessment and deployment immediately.  In this sense greater inclusiveness in DCC methods points to the practicality of more urgent deployment of local and low-risk methods even as more global and higher-risk methods are researched and tested further. The draft mentions "Localized surface albedo modification" noting that they are "less studied" as a category of Climate Intervention but neglects to point out and urge that some of these can and should be immediately (if found to be effective in pilots) deployed with little to no risk. 

A similar problem with (non-CDR) GHG reduction efforts is the  seemingly afterthought treatment of methane removal in the statement that Daphne and others in this thread have commented on. As I recall from a podcast (Daphne and others please correct if I'm wrong on this) methods to  burn concentrated anthropogenic and natural methane releases are already included in GHG offset protocols like that of California.  

For documentation of 18 different potential DCC methods including but not exclusively using SRM, see this final HPAC statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit

,

Best,

Ron Baiman

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:32 PM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

You will find the American Geophysical Union draft position statement on Climate Intervention below. I encourage HPAC participants to review this statement and if you an AGU member to submit your comments by January 9th. 

This is an important opportunity to shape AGU intervention policy to be consistent with HPAC principles. 

This page describes the cost and benefits of an AGU membership:

 https://www.agu.org/membership

I was surprised to see that a full year membership is only $50 and $20 for a student. 

I would encourage everyone who has a comment on the statement - whether you are or will become a member or not - to share it with the group. 

Any AGU veterans or others who wish to add to what I have written please do so. 

Thanks,

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimens

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniele Visioni <daniele...@gmail.com>
Date: December 8, 2022 at 1:03:09 PM EST
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention
Reply-To: daniele...@gmail.com

Dear all, 

Please find below a link to the new Draft position statement on Climate Intervention by AGU, to which I contributed to for this year.

Comments are open to all AGU members until January 9th, after which we will take them into consideration for a final draft to be sent to the AGU Council and Board for final approval.

At the link you’ll also see the differences between the new proposed one, and the previous one from 2018.

Best,

Daniele

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Daniele Visioni, PhD
Research Associate
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
US phone: (607)-280-0525
e-mail: daniele...@cornell.edu
website: https://dan-visioni.github.io/
Check out our latest published papers:
Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202230119
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

--
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/D4AFE3C5-0F41-4472-989F-E576501D42A5%40gmail.com.

--
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/33482326-7D3F-4720-A51A-821ADE05A343%40gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

I'm reposting this AGU statement and comments link from Chris Vivian.

Ron Baiman

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 4:39 AM Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com> wrote:

Ron,

 

You can submit comments at the bottom of the webpage for the draft statement i.e.,

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Draft-Climate-Intervention

 

Chris.

--
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/CAPhUB9Cwqe-GPdpB3OokX4BbFP-2J2v3qneeiRW8%2Bff-%3DfFMQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Ron,

Any response to the AGU draft needs to be crisp and to the point.  The most glaring omission from the AGU draft is the need to refreeze the Arctic.  This point does not come across in your final paragraph [1].  In fact it is downplayed when you say that the Arctic sea ice tipping point is "near to becoming imminent" when observations indicate that the Arctic Ocean is more than half way through the transition from perennial ice to seasonal ice.  And the urgency is completely lost from your opening sentence (as underlined): we may only have a few years to cool the Arctic enough to prevent climate spiralling out of control.  We can see the danger now from the growing extremes of weather, such as the "bomb cyclone" hitting the US today.

I would love to see you change this paragraph accordingly.  The relevance of the rest of the document hinges on this final paragraph.

Happy Christmas, John

[1] HPAC draft submission to AGU

During our current critically important short-term (at least several decades but possibly much
longer) transition period, it is vital to keep the climate from spiraling out of control. Only the
application of emergency cooling “tourniquets”, applied immediately or as soon as is
reasonably advisable, has the potential to slow or reverse ongoing climate disruption and
worsening climate impacts. Only direct climate cooling can slow or reverse Arctic sea ice
melting which is near to becoming an imminent climate tipping point. These are the
imperatives, challenges and opportunities of our epoch that must be immediately and
urgently taken on. Humanity has never faced an existential threat so critical for the survival
of human civilization and our fellow living species on this planet.

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/CAPhUB9BrvdK%3DsGVvFVp9ihpEfR_74QHaJnvzajA_M98QWTCN4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Attached is my final submission with its deadline today with text below.

Cheers, John

 

Background:

There is much international concern about the unexpected growth in extremes of weather which the AGU must acknowledge.  This trend is linked to a disruption of jet stream and polar vortex behaviour.  Extreme cold spells, such as recently occurred over a large part of the USA, cannot be explained by direct global warming, and CI on a global scale would not deal with such extremes.  However the growth in extremes can be attributed to the rapid warming of the Arctic, also known as Arctic amplification.  It is estimated that Arctic temperatures are now increasing at three to four times the global mean rate.  This reduces the temperature gradient between pole and tropics; this gradient, combined with the rotation of the Earth, drives the Rossby waves eastward round the planet while keeping the polar vortex in position.  To reverse the trend towards more extreme weather, Arctic temperatures need to be lowered: in effect the Arctic needs to be refrozen.  This has the potential to reverse other tipping point processes already active in the Arctic, such as meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the thawing of both land and undersea permafrost.  The need for the Arctic to be refrozen is already accepted by several scientific forums, including the Cambridge Centre for Climate Research (CCCR).

 

Proposed three-paragraph postscript to the AGU draft text:

 

Whereas the above considerations concern CI globally, the unexpectedly accelerating growth in extremes of weather over the past few years indicates that drastic action is needed to reverse this trend, now known to be largely driven by a rapidly warming Arctic. This calls for emergency cooling intervention to refreeze the Arctic.

 

The paper by Hansen et al. “Global warming in the pipeline” indicates that the limit of 1.5°C proposed at the Paris COP is likely to be breached within a decade.  Tipping point processes are already active in the Arctic, with positive feedback causing accelerating trends including: the loss of sea ice with associated increase in extremes of weather in the Northern Hemisphere; the loss of ice mass from the Greenland Ice Sheet with associated sea level rise; and the thawing of both land and subsea permafrost with associated emissions of the potent greenhouse gas, methane.  These trends could become irreversible without rapid intervention. 

 

Therefore the AGU supports urgent research into evaluating and modelling the deployment of those cooling technologies which could have maximum cooling effect: including cloud brightening in the Arctic summer, cloud removal in the Arctic winter and high latitude injection of aerosol into the stratosphere in late spring and early summer.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

John Nissen on behalf of the Planetary Restoration Action Group (PRAG)

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:17 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

Brilliant!  I particularly like your pointed comment about effective action:

The call “to advance safe, fair, inclusive, and equitable action” leaves out the critical point that climate action must be effective.  The high risk is that political ideology will continue to distort research priorities so that actions that don’t cool the planet (e.g. electric cars) will get priority over actions that do cool the planet.  The “Climate Justice” agenda that action must be fair, inclusive and equitable is essential, but without saying that action must be effective all these possible benefits will be missed.  Restoring and repairing the climate is the indispensable foundation for progress toward social justice.

The lack of effective action proposed by AGU is a terrible condemnation for young people today; whereas a proposal for effective action would give them hope.

But...

The AGU needs to accept the scientific reality that the Earth System is accelerating away from the Holocene norms that our civilisation relies on.  This acceleration is driven by rapid Arctic warming.  As you well know, the whole emphasis of my "Paper for AGU 2022" and the poster containing that paper being presented next week, is that refreezing the Arctic must be the top priority for action.  It is not just to slow sea level rise, as you mention, it is to avoid various catastrophes which could be produced by tipping points: a sudden collapse of Greenland glaciers;; a mutual collapse of some Antarctic glaciers; a sudden change in atmospheric circulation caused by further jet-stream disruption; a sudden increase in climate forcing due to a multi-megaton outburst of methane from permafrost; and a further decline in the AMOC which is critical to global ocean circulation and oxygenation.

We don't know how soon these catastrophes could occur, but any one of these tipping points could become a point of no return, when no amount of cooling intervention could prevent its associated catastrophe.  So cooling intervention could not be more urgent.

This is looking on the prevention side.  On the positive side, refreezing the Arctic can help to reverse climate change by stabilising/normalising jet stream behaviour.  It can slow methane release from permafrost.  It can halt AMOC decline.  It can restore the Arctic ecosystem.  And, as you say, it can slow sea level rise.

This is what needs to be argued with the AGU before they publish.  I hope Leslie can help us.  It would be fantastic to get the AGU on our side and certainly worth a try!  They have a reputation for good science at stake.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:50 AM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Hi Herb and all

 

I am not a member of AGU, but I would like to share some comments here as their position statement is important and influential.

 

Overall, the proposed AGU support for research on methods to increase albedo is a highly welcome contribution to the most important existential question for our planetary future, how best to respond to climate change.  However, the draft statement displays confusion and negativity that does much to remove the clarity and purpose of its overall support, reflecting widely held political assumptions.  My main concern is that the Introduction presents a partisan argument that excludes what may prove the only real solution, a Grand Bargain with the fossil fuel industry to allow ongoing emissions in exchange for climate stabilisation.

 

The AGU draft starts off with the false and unscientific claim that “Climate intervention (CI) measures cannot substitute for deep cuts in emissions or the need for adaptation. “ 

 

This non-substitution claim is a religious and political mantra designed to reinforce social polarisation and gain political backing, not a science-based observation.  The fact is, CI measures CAN substitute for emission reduction in the short term.  It would be perfectly possible to scale GHG removal over coming decades to larger than current emissions and allow emissions to continue, enabling a slower decarbonisation of the economy.  Similarly, it is possible to scale up solar geoengineering to achieve net zero heating while emissions continue.  Those are both simple examples of substitution that refute the AGU opening line.  Arguments against CI such as ocean acidification and side effects do not recognise the orders of magnitude of the physical forces involved in climate change, failing to accept that the risks of not proceeding with CI research are far worse than the risks and benefits of proceeding.

 

The AGU draft claim that CI cannot substitute for climate adaptation is ignorant, immoral and dangerous.  It means, for example, that refreezing the Arctic to slow sea level rise cannot substitute for turning hundreds of millions of people into climate refugees and destroying beaches, ports and wetlands as we ‘adapt’ to rising sea level.  It means that deploying Marine Cloud Brightening to cool the Atlantic cannot substitute for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on ‘adapting’ to worsening hurricanes.  Of course CI must be a substitute for adaptation to limit the scale and trauma of adaptation needed.  This non-substitution argument is a recipe for failing to mobilise CI as fast as possible. We need CI as a far superior substitute to the harms of ongoing warming. 

 

The non-substitution argument is designed to protect government funding for emission cuts.  However, if that funding rests on the false premise that emission cuts alone can cool the planet, it is not fit for purpose and needs to switch focus to something that actually can cool the planet, effective climate intervention through albedo enhancement.

 

I am using harsh language here because I am sick of seeing this echo chamber language about substitution that allows wasting of precious time needed for urgent deployment of methods to enhance planetary albedo.  The only reasoned criticisms I have seen of my view are political, that the non-substitution argument is popular on the left.  With due respect, the AGU should stick to scientific analysis rather than second-guessing the popularity of its views, especially when these views are blatantly delusional and wrong.

 

The thinking behind this AGU statement against substitution rests on primitive tribal loyalty, not analysis of evidence.  They are saying the emotional hatred of fossil fuels within their tribe is so strong they are willing to junk the scientific method and instead support a baseless and highly partisan political attack, or otherwise their friends might shun them.  AGU should not support such contentious and harmful political arguments that muddy the clear view needed on causes and responses for mitigating climate change. 

 

The draft continues to analyse replacement in its section headed “Opportunities & Challenges”.  But after repeating the opening political assertion, the document doesn’t say anything to justify it (because they can’t). Instead, it veers to the non-sequitur that “even stopping GHG emissions now could leave Earth at levels of warming many would consider unacceptable.”  Far from supporting the non-substitution argument, that actually undermines it.  We all know it is not possible to stop emissions now.  But this fanciful counterfactual scenario of a sudden end to combustion actually supports the call for direct cooling to augment emission reduction as an immediate substitute strategy.  Noting that we are already at an “unacceptable level of warming” should lead to recognition that solar geoengineering is the only thing that can return the planet to an acceptable temperature, and that even accelerated emission cuts would be marginal to warming for many decades.  The implication that AGU should mention here is that in fact cutting emissions cannot substitute for direct cooling as a way to stabilise and repair the climate.

 

The section on Needed Actions is excellent, but leaves out three crucial points, that business must be included, research must be effective, and cooperative governance of geoengineering will protect and enhance biodiversity, security, stability and prosperity.

 

The call for “dialogue that includes and engages communities and the broader public” should be expanded to include dialogue with industry stakeholders.  The fossil fuel industry can either block or enable this work.  Excluding them will dangerously delay progress.  They have the skills, resources and contacts to ensure research proceeds quickly.  These assets must be mobilised in partnership, not rejected.

 

The call “to advance safe, fair, inclusive, and equitable action” leaves out the critical point that climate action must be effective.  The high risk is that political ideology will continue to distort research priorities so that actions that don’t cool the planet (eg electric cars) will get priority over actions that do cool the planet.  The “Climate Justice” agenda that action must be fair, inclusive and equitable is essential, but without saying that action must be effective all these possible benefits will be missed.  Restoring and repairing the climate is the indispensable foundation for progress toward social justice.

 

Effective cooling can enable the ongoing economic prosperity needed to protect and enhance biodiversity, stability and security.  Without this foundation, there is no prospect for inclusion, justice and equity.  Too-rapid decarbonisation presents massive risks of economic collapse and resulting conflict and poverty. Cutting emissions needs to be placed within a strategic vision of a critical engineering path from our current crisis to a sustainable future.  That path has to include the need for energy security, which can only be delivered through a gradual shift to renewable sources alongside ongoing emissions. On biodiversity, problems such as poleward drift, coral bleaching and sea level rise present major extinction threats, which can only be forestalled by immediate cooling action.

 

International cooperation and public private partnership are needed for direct climate cooling through albedo enhancement.  Such collaboration would offer the most plausible path to support ongoing world peace and security, for example by helping Russia and China to shift their diplomatic focus from confrontation to cooperation, and bringing the fossil economy into the climate action tent.   These benefits for world peace, together with the need to slow climate tipping points, significantly and massively outweigh the risks of delay.

 

The HPAC call for a climate triad to cool, remove and reduce as equal priorities presents a workable climate strategy.  Achieving that equality requires acceptance that action to cool the climate and remove GHGs does in fact present an effective substitute for current thinking on accelerating emission reduction and adaptation.  Cutting emissions should continue where it makes economic and ecological and environmental sense, without pretending it could be enough to slow climate change.

 

The AGU draft statement well articulates the current informed scientific consensus on the urgent need to advance from the complacent IPCC focus on emission reduction alone, and, by supporting planetary brightening, from the IPCC recognition of the need to remove greenhouse gases. It effectively rebuts the ignorant voices that oppose cooling research, and also refutes the alleged ‘Net Zero Commitment’ that imagines achieving net zero emissions would be enough for climate stability.  As such the AGU position is highly important and welcome as an advance on previous prevailing views.   Yet solving the climate emergency will need more – a radical paradigm shift in how our species inhabits and manages our planet, to regulate the atmosphere to produce optimal conditions for flourishing.  This shift to a brighter planet will need gradual incremental measures that respect the inertia and momentum of the world economy with its deep conservative entrenchment of fossil fuels.  Respecting and engaging the fossil economy has to abandon the ideological belief that direct cooling cannot replace faster emission cuts. Part of the research agenda should include the ethical debate on whether a slower energy transition, backed by climate intervention, would be a good approach. 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/06d501d90b70%24aac17c70%2400447550%24%40rtulip.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi John

 

Thanks, that is great.

 

It is so important to ask AGU to think about the planet system as a whole in a coherent way, something many scientists seem to find difficult. 

 

Developing an Earth System approach is the basic intent of viewing the Arctic as a driver of systemic climate effects. 

 

You suggest cloud brightening in the Arctic summer.  Does that mean only brightening summer clouds above the Arctic, or does it also include brightening the clouds above the ocean currents that flow into the Arctic to cool the inflowing water? 

 

I would be interested if Stephen Salter could comment on whether there are estimates of the likely relative effects of these two options.    

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2023 10:28 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your support.  I should have referenced my AGU presentation concerning an Earth System approach being necessary to address the climate crisis.

You are right that I cut corners by implying that the cooling had to be done in the Arctic.  SAI is best with injection in the sub-Arctic. MCB needs a large area of ocean for the marine clouds, so would be most effectively deployed in the North Atlantic and North Pacific: cooling the surface water flowing into the Arctic.

Peter Wadhams has pointed out a mistake: the R in CCCR is for repair, not for research.  Perhaps I should not have mentioned them at all; but for me their support for refreezing the Arctic is outstanding.  I don't know whether there is a way to make corrections past yesterday's deadline.  Leslie might know.

My biggest regret is not suggesting an opening paragraph for the AGU statement on CI.  One of AGU's missions should be for reversing climate change and restoring the planet and its ecosystems to safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive states.  This inevitably involves considerable CI, which needs to be viewed positively in the light of the end goal.  There are huge potential benefits of CI: e.g. for economic growth, for risk reduction and for maintaining biodiversity. 

Note that, hitherto, CI has mostly been viewed negatively by the scientific establishment and climate activists.  But the unexpectedly rapid growth in extremes of weather is changing that attitude and making people think that SRM may be required sooner rather than later.  Opinions could be at a tipping point so we need to push hard for a chance to get the urgent action that's required.

Cheers, John

[alb...@thefarm.org]

I hope folks will take a few minutes to watch the opening talk with Johan Rockström's graphics at the WEF-Davos session on climate change. The full hour with Al Gore, Yo Yo Ma, etc is worth watching, but Rockström drew the link with the Arctic driving all other parts of the climate system and also having the fastest rate of warming.

Leading the Charge through Earth's New Normal > World Economic Forum Annual Meeting | World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2023/sessions/leading-the-charge-through-earths-new-normal?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social_video&utm_term=1_1&utm_content=28786_16+tipping_points_crisis&utm_campaign=social_video_2023

On 1/21/23 7:51 AM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

Developing an Earth System approach is the basic intent of viewing the Arctic as a driver of systemic climate effects. 

--

[Stephen Salter]

Robert

 

You asked about the differences between stratospheric sulphur and marine cloud brightening.

 

The life of tropospheric aerosol is half the mean time between rain or snow showers, usually only a few days. This means that we have to keep doing it but we have tactical control of both season and region.    We might very well want to stop cooling on bright winter days and we can do this with a single click of a mouse.  We can target El Niño events and hot blobs. We can steer fleets of spray vessels to get patterns of sea-surface temperatures to those requested by Governments of hurricane affected countries. We have a chance to learn from our mistakes. Averaging of satellite images gives useful data in a week. In particular we can stop well before winter when any kind of aerosol will warm the earth by blocking outgoing longwave radiation.

 

The lifetime of stratospheric aerosol is disputed but very much longer. Some people suggest that treatment at high latitudes will all have been removed before the onset of winter. With my advantage of ignorance of atmospheric physics I hesitantly suggest that jet streams will act like stirring cream in coffee so that some of everything gets everywhere at least in the same hemisphere and fades with an unknown half-life.  If we get it wrong we are stuck with the result for an uncomfortably long time .

 

Salt is medicinally benign, actually good for people with lung problems. The amounts we would use at exactly the right size chosen by the Cicero labs are tiny compared with what is thrown up in a wide range of sizes from breaking waves.  Salt should reduce the strength of hostility.

 

Energy for spray generation is provided by the wind.

 

Engineering drawings for spray vessels are nearly complete down to fasteners and O-rings. Cost estimates based on the power and weight of heavy earthmoving machines (with a strikingly similar mechanism) suggest annual ownership cost below COP meetings. I am now working on the design of machine tools for manufacture.

 

Stephen

 

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

School of Engineering

University of Edinburgh

Mayfield Road

Edinburgh EH9 3DW

Scotland

0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180

YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

 

 

 

From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>

Sent: 21 January 2023 12:51
To: 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Peter Wadhams' <peterw...@gmail.com>; 'Hugh.Hunt' <he...@cam.ac.uk>

Subject: RE: [geo] AGU Draft position statement on Climate Intervention

 

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.

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.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Sorry Stephen, you misread my question.  Apologies that I was not more clear. 

 

My question was about the difference between deploying MCB to cool the currents entering the Arctic, ie at sub-Arctic latitudes, for example over the Gulf Stream and the Bering Sea, and deploying MCB in the Arctic itself. 

 

My supposition was that cooling the ocean currents might have more effect than cooling the Arctic itself.  Do you know the answer to this?

 

Thanks, Robert

--
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/AM8PR05MB8035276FBC2FAD8D5A288CCBA7CA9%40AM8PR05MB8035.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[Stephen Salter]

Robert

Heat spreads out to give lower more even temperatures and fewer local hot spots. The main differences between working in the  Arctic  and in the approaching currents are the time lag, the range of temperatures and the number of people wanting to give permission.  Spray vessels would not get too close to the ice. But colder winds would  remove heat.  However we would prefer to make liquid water freeze rather make ice colder.  Vessel mobility means we can do experiments and change if necessary.

Stephen