Andrew, cc list and two more new ccs
1. Thanks again for finding and alerting the Geo list to so many pertinent
papers - and especially this one from yesterday. I write to thank the authors
(2 being cc’d) and hope that we can have more dialog on this Geo-Assessment
topic. (I like CE replacing Geo, but not on this list, until the list changes
its name)
2. Dr. Oschlies’ inclusion as first author is obvious, but I add Dr.
Mengis based on her thesis title:
Mengis, N., (2016), Towards a comprehensive, comparative assessment of
climate engineering schemes, metrics, indicators and uncertainties. PhD thesis,
Kiel University, 151pp.
- which I have requested.
3. The paper asks for other thoughts on assessing (ranking) Geo topics - so
here are a few from a biochar (unmentioned in this paper, but identified in one
cite) perspective, that go beyond the standard ones involving costs, risks,
etc. (which they cover well). I don’t believe these three proposed criteria
are now in the below cited paper.
a. GEO (in my case, CDR) technologies that support non-climate global
priorities should somehow receive extra credit. I am thinking of the new
17-part framework found at
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworl=>
. Obviously food (and quite a few other of the 17) fits for biochar (and
receive minimum credit in the well-known CDR comparisons).
b. Technologies that are experiencing growth (in installations,
papers, conference attention, etc) rather than stagnation should receive higher
rankings. (Also fail to see this [commercialization status] cited)
c. Technologies that have out-year, as well as first-year climate
benefits (are investments rather than expenses) deserve higher credit. (Nor
this one - stopping the analysis of biochar when it is put in the ground misses
half the excitement.)
4. I also found one sentence in the paper about afforestation that needs
discussion from a CDR perspective. It reads: “Would the accounting of carbon
sequestered via afforestation be viewed differently when radiative forcing of
afforestation was found to lead to a net warming?"
My answer is “yes” (to “differently”, not necessarily negatively) as
this is a valid question, based on reduced albedo for forests over pastures.
But it is complicated by land use changes and biogeophysical effects -
especially for all of the bio type of CDR options. This topic is covered many
places - such as in these five articles (the last two on biochar - which say no
warming [that biochar is different from afforestation]):
a. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114014
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114014%22>
b.
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18069/JoC2014.pdf?sequence3D1
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18069/J=>
c. http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/3687/2011/bg-8-3687-2011.pdf
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/3687/2011/bg-8-3687-2011.pdf%22>
d. (Albedo Impact on the Suitability of Biochar Systems To Mitigate
Global Warming”
(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es302302g
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es302302g>)
(with fee), or for some, this is no-fee
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno_Glaser2/publication/233403518_Albedo_Impact_on_the_Suitability_of_Biochar_Systems_To_Mitigate_Global_Warming/links/55dc9f8f08aed6a199adfe9d.pdf
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno_Glaser2/publication/233403518_Albedo_Impact_on_the_Suitability_of_Biochar_Systems_To_Mitigate_Global_Warming/links/55dc9f8f08aed6a199adfe9d.pdf>
e. Mimicking biochar-albedo feedback in complex Mediterranean
agricultural landscapes
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084014
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084014%22>
I recognize that the authors clearly asked a question about afforestation - not
the bio branch of CDR, but some may inappropriately make an inaccurate
connection. So, if anyone feels that biochar fails on this score, I hope we
can have some discussion on the albedo topic. Afforestation differs in
providing neither energy nor long-lived, out-year increased CDR services.
Ron
On Nov 15, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Andrew Lockley = <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
Indicators and Metrics for the Assessment of Climate Engineering
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
A. Oschlies, et al
14 November 2016
DOI:10.1002/2016EF000449
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
Selecting = appropriate indicators is essential to aggregate the information
provided by climate model outputs into a manageable set of relevant metrics on
which assessments of climate engineering (CE) can be based. 46rom all the
variables potentially available from climate models, indicators need to be
selected that are able to inform scientists and society on the development of
the Earth system under climate engineering (CE), as well as on possible impacts
and side effects of various ways of deploying CE or not. However, the
indicators used so far have been largely identical to those used in climate
change assessments and do not visibly reflect the fact that indicators for
assessing CE (and thus the metrics composed of these indicators) may be
different from those used to assess global warming. Until now, there has been
little dedicated effort to identifying specific indicators and metrics for
assessing CE. We here propose that such an effort should be facilitated by a
more decision-oriented approach and an iterative procedure in close interaction
between academia, decision makers and stakeholders. Specifically, synergies and
trade-offs between social objectives reflected by individual indicators, as
well as decision-relevant uncertainties should be considered in the development
of metrics, so that society can take informed decisions about climate policy
measures under the impression of the options available, their likely effects
and side effects, and the quality of the underlying knowledge base.
<applewebdata://A1F4825B-B843-42AA-9210-068772B89F3F/3D%22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000449/full%22>
--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
