Re: [geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR

[Greg Rau]

Agree that this is a positive development, but Hansen and 350.org have been 
advocating bio CDR for a long time, just not packaging it in those terms. If 
350 is the magic number, then obviously, emissions reduction will take too long 
to get there. Somehow the discussion then immediately turns to land biology- 
BECCS, afforestation, soil C retention, biochar, etc. as though using only 30% 
of the (already overexploited) Earth's surface is the best and only way to 
remove 50 ppm from air and 50 ppm from ocean = 780 Gt of CO2, and assuming we 
stop emitting fossil fuel CO2 tomorrow. I'd like to learn how we force land 
biology to singlehandedly achieve this, while also feeding and watering the 
world. Given what's at stake, I'd say a broader consideration of possibilities 
that includes the other 70% of the globe is required. In any case you can be 
sure that since the IPCC "solved" the CDR problem with BECCS and afforestation, 
that COP 21 will do the same, though
 the target IPCC/COP are shooting for guarantee a world and climate that bears 
little resemblance to that with 350 ppm CO2.
Greg




On Tue, 9/15/15, John Nissen  wrote:

 Subject: [geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR
 To: "Geoengineering" 
 Cc: "Ron Larson" 
 Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 2:50 AM
 
 
 
   
 
     
   
   
     Hi all,
       
 
       
 
       This French project, announced in April [1], is the
 most important
       development on CDR (carbon dioxide removal) that I
 have ever read,
       despite no mention of biochar.  What prompted
 this brilliant
       idea?   Could such projects be urged for all
 countries, to
       complement pledges for emissions reductions at
 COP21?  Then there
       might be real progress towards reducing the CO2 level
 to 350 ppm
       or below, which Jim Hansen urges for preventing
 dangerous global
       warming and ocean acidification and other effects
 [2].  Speed is
       essential to prevent dangerous ocean acidification
 which is
       already serious at 400 ppm, so 350 ppm may need to be
 reached
       within two or three decades.  This sets the
 urgency for an
       aggressive international CDR strategy.  An ideal
 place to announce
       such a strategy would be COP21!
       
 
       
 
       Cheers, John
       
 
       
 
       [1] http://frenchfoodintheus.org/2285
       
 
       
 
       [2] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
       
 
       
 
       --
       
 
       
 
       Re: [biochar] Fwd: [soil-age] Tom Newmark's letter
 published in
       The New Yorker Magazine
       
 
       
 
       On 15/09/2015 02:12, Erich Knight erichjkni...@gmail.com
       [biochar] wrote:
       
 
       France
         recently announced a project to increase soil
 organic matter
         (carbon) by 0.4 per cent a year, which the
 country’s
         agricultural minister said would “stock the
 equivalent of the
         anthropogenic carbon gas produced by humanity
 today.”
         
 
       
     
   
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 
 For more options, visit 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg,  John,  List

1.  Starting with John Nissen’s message (below) today - I have tried 
unsuccessfully for some time to learn details on the recent French soil 
+0.4%C/yr carbon goal.   This is apparently meant to be the centerpiece of 
their hosting COP21 in Paris - and should be good news to all CDR advocates.   
I think this goal could eventually help biochar (I think the main CDR approach 
involving soils), but does not have that intent as its origin.

2.  I agree with Greg that the CDR story is missing out by not 
mentioning ocean photosynthesis more often.   Greg is talking here of a CO2 
concentration scenario like 400 ppm to 350 ppm - NOT 450 ppm  to 350 ppm (with 
212 Gt C involved for his scenario). I believe Greg is saying even the 
relatively modest 50 ppm gain is still a lot of  carbon.  Some bio advocates 
may see this C or CO2 staying in the ocean,  but biochar advocates and the 
French are thinking of this going into soils (as perhaps 250 Gt Char, since 
char is only about 80% carbon and/or some portion is labile).

3.  My part of the biochar world has been buzzing this past week about 
a report of 300% increase in pumpkin growth in Nepal with biochar and urine.  
This particular study has negative sequestration costs - and I think can be 
(and is being) repeated at still negative cost levels for other species, soils 
and locales.  See www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/3/723/pdf.  
This file opens no-fee for me - but if not for others, I can send. I 
can also send several lengthy exchanges with the author Hans-Peter Schmidt - on 
the “biochar” list last week.  
If indeed sequestration can now be better than free - CDR can move very 
rapidly - with 350 ppm in sight by mid-century.  Stranger things have happened. 
 Two weeks ago, I would not have said this- but 300% difference is remarkable - 
and the char input was tiny.  We’re learning.

Ron


On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Agree that this is a positive development, but Hansen and 350.org have been 
> advocating bio CDR for a long time, just not packaging it in those terms. If 
> 350 is the magic number, then obviously, emissions reduction will take too 
> long to get there. Somehow the discussion then immediately turns to land 
> biology- BECCS, afforestation, soil C retention, biochar, etc. as though 
> using only 30% of the (already overexploited) Earth's surface is the best and 
> only way to remove 50 ppm from air and 50 ppm from ocean = 780 Gt of CO2, and 
> assuming we stop emitting fossil fuel CO2 tomorrow. I'd like to learn how we 
> force land biology to singlehandedly achieve this, while also feeding and 
> watering the world. Given what's at stake, I'd say a broader consideration of 
> possibilities that includes the other 70% of the globe is required. In any 
> case you can be sure that since the IPCC "solved" the CDR problem with BECCS 
> and afforestation, that COP 21 will do the same, though
> the target IPCC/COP are shooting for guarantee a world and climate that bears 
> little resemblance to that with 350 ppm CO2.
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 9/15/15, John Nissen  wrote:
> 
> Subject: [geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR
> To: "Geoengineering" 
> Cc: "Ron Larson" 
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 2:50 AM
> 
>  Hi all,
> 
>This French project, announced in April [1], is the
> most important
>development on CDR (carbon dioxide removal) that I
> have ever read,
>despite no mention of biochar.  What prompted
> this brilliant
>idea?   Could such projects be urged for all
> countries, to
>complement pledges for emissions reductions at
> COP21?  Then there
>might be real progress towards reducing the CO2 level
> to 350 ppm
>or below, which Jim Hansen urges for preventing
> dangerous global
>warming and ocean acidification and other effects
> [2].  Speed is
>essential to prevent dangerous ocean acidification
> which is
>already serious at 400 ppm, so 350 ppm may need to be
> reached
>within two or three decades.  This sets the
> urgency for an
>aggressive international CDR strategy.  An ideal
> place to announce
>such a strategy would be COP21!
>
> 
>Cheers, John
>
> 
>[1] http://frenchfoodintheus.org/2285
> 
>[2] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
>
> 
>   

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit 

[geo] COP21 and French strategy for CDR

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

This French project, announced in April [1], is the most important 
development on CDR (carbon dioxide removal) that I have ever read, 
despite no mention of biochar.  What prompted this brilliant idea?   
Could such projects be urged for all countries, to complement pledges 
for emissions reductions at COP21?  Then there might be real progress 
towards reducing the CO2 level to 350 ppm or below, which Jim Hansen 
urges for preventing dangerous global warming and ocean acidification 
and other effects [2].  Speed is essential to prevent dangerous ocean 
acidification which is already serious at 400 ppm, so 350 ppm may need 
to be reached within two or three decades.  This sets the urgency for an 
aggressive international CDR strategy.  An ideal place to announce such 
a strategy would be COP21!


Cheers, John

[1] http://frenchfoodintheus.org/2285

[2] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

--

Re: [biochar] Fwd: [soil-age] Tom Newmark's letter published in The New 
Yorker Magazine


On 15/09/2015 02:12, Erich Knight erichjkni...@gmail.com [biochar] wrote:
France recently announced a project to increase soil organic matter 
(carbon) by 0.4 per cent a year, which the country's agricultural 
minister said would "stock the equivalent of the anthropogenic carbon 
gas produced by humanity today."


--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Possibility for controlling global warming by launching nanoparticles into the stratosphere

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/10/2/10_2015jtst0022/_article

Journal of Thermal Science and Technology
Vol. 10 (2015) No. 2 p. JTST0022

http://doi.org/10.1299/jtst.2015jtst0022

Possibility for controlling global warming by launching nanoparticles into
the stratosphere
Shigenao MARUYAMA, Takeshi NAGAYAMA, Hiroki GONOME, Junnosuke OKAJIMA
September 02, 2015

Keywords: Global warming, Nanoparticles, Launching projectiles, Control of
Earth's temperature, Greenhouse gases

Global warming is one of the most serious problems faced by humans. One
method to decrease the Earth's temperature is to reduce solar irradiation
by dispersing nanoparticles in the atmosphere. Submicron-diameter particles
or aerosols scatter solar irradiation, whereas they are transparent to
long-wavelength infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. This phenomenon
has received attention in the discussions of the nuclear winter, which is
an uncontrolled cooling of the global temperature. The objective of the
present work is to examine the first-order approximation of the feasibility
of controlling the global temperature without reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases. We propose the controlled dispersion of nanoparticles
into the stratosphere at an altitude of 30 km. A precise analysis of the
radiative properties of particles in the solar spectrum and IR regions is
conducted, and radiative transfer through the stratosphere-dispersed
nanoparticles is approximated using a one-dimensional single-scattering
model. Several types of nanoparticles are considered. The optimum size of
the nanoparticles determined using the model is 350-450 nm. The dispersion
of nanoparticles with a total mass of 3×107 tons into the stratosphere will
reduce 3% of the solar irradiation. The blockage can be maintained by
launching 10-ton projectiles 19 times per day from 100 launch sites.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Action Gaming Experiment: Methods and Example Results

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/2/202

Challenges 2015, 6(2), 202-228; doi:10.3390/challe6020202
Article

Climate Action Gaming Experiment: Methods and Example Results

Clifford Singer and Leah Matchett
7 September 2015

Abstract

An exercise has been prepared and executed to simulate international
interactions on policies related to greenhouse gases and global albedo
management. Simulation participants are each assigned one of six regions
that together contain all of the countries in the world. Participants make
quinquennial policy decisions on greenhouse gas emissions, recapture of CO2
from the atmosphere, and/or modification of the global albedo. Costs of
climate change and of implementing policy decisions impact each region’s
gross domestic product. Participants are tasked with maximizing economic
benefits to their region while nearly stabilizing atmospheric CO2
concentrations by the end of the simulation in Julian year 2195. Results
are shown where regions most adversely affected by effects of greenhouse
gas emissions resort to increases in the earth’s albedo to reduce net solar
insolation. These actions induce temperate region countries to reduce net
greenhouse gas emissions. An example outcome is a trajectory to the year
2195 of atmospheric greenhouse emissions and concentrations, sea level, and
global average temperature.

Keywords: climate change; model; solar radiation management; simulation
climate change; model; solar radiation management; simulation

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.