List and cc Andrew:
Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention.
In addition to Andrew’s cite below, the full (free) article is at:
https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf
<https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf>
To summarize the article from a biochar perspective: the word
“biochar” appears once as a possible natural technology and in the title of one
reference. However, like BECCS, biochar is not one of the CDR approaches to be
considered in this CDR-MIP. The COP 21 and 22 emphases on soil carbon and the
CDR opinions of agronomists and soil scientists will not be explored in this
study. Afforestation/reforestation is included as one of the three approaches
for detail - so a part of biochar and BECCS will be there, but soil carbon
content won’t change much in the models.
The final pages have some potentially useful graphs. I look forward to
reading some new general CDR cites.
Ron
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/
> <https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/>
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale
> and experimental design
> David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5, Nico
> Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10, and
> Kirsten Zickfeld11
> 1GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany
> 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia
> 3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart,
> Australia
> 4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
> 5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental
> Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
> 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain Sustainable
> Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
> 7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
> University, Beijing, China
> 8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
> 9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National
> Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
> 10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
> 11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada
> Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion
> started: 17 Aug 2017
> Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe,
> pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction to
> mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is called
> Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, or Climate Intervention – deliberate
> interventions to counter climate change that seek to either modify the
> Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 from the
> atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is called
> Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission scenarios that
> stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that do not exceed
> 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At present, there
> is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the different types of
> proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model
> Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This project brings
> together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the
> potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of
> CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions concerning
> CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth system to
> direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and storage), and the CDR
> potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation, as well as ocean
> alkalinization.
>
>
> Citation: Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, N.,
> Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The Carbon
> Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and
> experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,
> https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168 <https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168>,
> in review, 2017
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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.
