Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[John Nissen]

Hi Fred,

Yes, we must compare and contrast methods, but also combinations of
methods.  And we have to consider not only carbon capture but carbon
sequestration (how long is carbon held?), methane suppression, avoided
emissions, ocean acidification, albedo enhancement and food production.

On land we have the possibility to combine rock crushing of olivine with
biochar, to enhance carbon capture, reducing artificial fertiliser (thus
avoiding CO2 emissions) and improving crop yields.  Rock crushings on the
soil surface can enhance albedo.

In lakes we have the possibility to use diatoms to purify water, suppress
methane and feed a food chain, whose products or residues could be used as
biomass for input to a biochar process.

At sea, we have the possibility to combine diatoms with rock crushing of
olivine to capture and sequester carbon, while reducing ocean
acidification, feeding the food chain and enhancing albedo of the water
surface.

But in every case it is scalability that is crucial, if we are to make the
necessary impact on Earth System to prevent catastrophes from global
warming and ocean acidification while feeding an expanding population.

Cheers,

John




On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Fred Zimmerman
wrote:

> I like the idea of listing many (most?) of the known processes. I believe
> that GE in general suffers from a lack of synoptic thinking as advocates of
> individual technologies become "single issue voters".
>
>
> ---
> Fred Zimmerman
> Geoengineering IT!
> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Greg and Ron,
>>
>> Indeed.  Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative
>> carbon processes.  Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the
>> issues:
>>
>>
>>- Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon
>>via Ocean Afforestation."
>>- Biochar
>>- BECCS
>>- Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with
>>hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?)
>>- OIF
>>- Lime in the ocean
>>- Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots
>>- Chemical "trees"
>>- Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth)
>>- Diatoms
>>
>>
>> Mark E. Capron, PE
>> Oxnard, California
>> www.PODenergy.org
>>
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR
>> From: RAU greg 
>> Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 am
>> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering
>> 
>>
>>  Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given
>> that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia)
>> will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR,
>> but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we
>> stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we
>> might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd
>> say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR
>> community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway,
>> count me in.
>> -Greg
>>
>>
>> As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:
>>
>>  Given the reversibility of *air CO2 concentrations and hence*CO2-induced
>> warming, every increment of *reduced or* avoided
>> temperature increase represents less warming [x, y]
>> that would otherwise persist for many
>> *millenia (Archer et al., 2009)*. Because *post-*emissions *(i.e., air
>> CO2)* removals
>> can return global *CO2 and* temperatures to preindustrial
>> levels, they do have the power to
>> avert additional warming *or affect cooling* on the same time
>> scale as the emissions reductions *or removals* themselves.
>> Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this
>> decade, or this century *is* predetermined
>> by both past and future CO2 emissions *as well as the rate of CO2
>> removal.*
>>  The climate benefits
>> of *both* emissions reductions and *enhanced CO2 removal  [CDR] will*thus
>> occur on the same time scale as the political
>> decisions that lead to *CO2 emissions* reductions *and/or CDR*.
>>
>> One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2
>> from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will
>>

Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[Fred Zimmerman]

I like the idea of listing many (most?) of the known processes. I believe
that GE in general suffers from a lack of synoptic thinking as advocates of
individual technologies become "single issue voters".


---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM,  wrote:

> Greg and Ron,
>
> Indeed.  Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative
> carbon processes.  Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the
> issues:
>
>
>- Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon via
>Ocean Afforestation."
>- Biochar
>- BECCS
>- Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with
>hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?)
>- OIF
>- Lime in the ocean
>- Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots
>- Chemical "trees"
>- Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth)
>- Diatoms
>
>
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Oxnard, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR
> From: RAU greg 
> Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 am
> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering
> 
>
>  Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given
> that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia)
> will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR,
> but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we
> stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we
> might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd
> say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR
> community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway,
> count me in.
> -Greg
>
>
> As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:
>
>  Given the reversibility of *air CO2 concentrations and hence* CO2-induced
> warming, every increment of *reduced or* avoided
> temperature increase represents less warming [x, y]
> that would otherwise persist for many
> *millenia (Archer et al., 2009)*. Because *post-*emissions *(i.e., air
> CO2)* removals
> can return global *CO2 and* temperatures to preindustrial
> levels, they do have the power to
> avert additional warming *or affect cooling* on the same time
> scale as the emissions reductions *or removals* themselves.
> Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this
> decade, or this century *is* predetermined
> by both past and future CO2 emissions *as well as the rate of CO2 removal.
> *
> The climate benefits
> of *both* emissions reductions and *enhanced CO2 removal  [CDR] will* thus
> occur on the same time scale as the political
> decisions that lead to *CO2 emissions* reductions *and/or CDR*.
>
> One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2
> from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will
> degas back into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of
> air CO2 conc to air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why
> I'm a big fan of consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity
> addition).  This addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean-->air CO2
> flux is reduced or reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio
> effects (on calcification) of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity
> addition. Given earth's past successes in mitigating excess global CO2 in
> this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore Mother Nature's example, but
> I'm open to better ideas.
> -Greg
>
>
>  --
> *From:* "rongretlar...@comcast.net" 
> *To:* Geoengineering 
> *Sent:* Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PM
> *Subject:* [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR
>
> List:
>
> 1.   I believe this article from last week's *Science* could be
> valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either
> side of geoengineering:
> *Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable*;H. Damon Matthews 1
> and Susan Solomon 2
> Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 
> 438-439DOI:10.1126/science.1236372
>
>
>
>   2.   I hope someone can help me understand the use of "Irreversible" in
> the title and, as an example, in the final paragraph:
>
> "Given the *irreversibility* of CO2-induced
> warming ( 5, 6), ev

RE: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[markcapron]

Fred,
 
Duncan McLaren has a really good graph (Figure 2) showing scale, cost, readiness in a paper that appeared in the same issue of Process Safety and Enviromental Protection as us.  We were too new to include.  I figure us at ~2 on readiness, US$16/ton of CO2, and diameter ~50 billion tons of CO2/year.  
 
A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001176
November 2012Duncan McLaren
 

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org
 
 

 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDRFrom: Fred Zimmerman Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 6:10 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: gh...@sbcglobal.net, Ronal Larson , Geoengineering 
I like the idea of listing many (most?) of the known processes. I believe that GE in general suffers from a lack of synoptic thinking as advocates of individual technologies become "single issue voters".



---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!   
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM,  wrote:


Greg and Ron,
 
Indeed.  Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative carbon processes.  Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the issues:
 

Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation."
Biochar
BECCS
Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?)
OIF
Lime in the ocean
Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots
Chemical "trees"
Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth)
Diatoms

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 
 

 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDRFrom: RAU greg Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 amTo: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering

Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia) will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR, but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway, count me in.
-Greg


As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:


Given the reversibility of air CO2 concentrations and hence CO2-inducedwarming, every increment of reduced or avoidedtemperature increase represents less warming [x, y]that would otherwise persist for manymillenia (Archer et al., 2009). Because post-emissions (i.e., air CO2) removalscan return global CO2 and temperatures to preindustriallevels, they do have the power toavert additional warming or affect cooling on the same timescale as the emissions reductions or removals themselves.Climate warming tomorrow, this year, thisdecade, or this century is predeterminedby both past and future CO2 emissions as well as the rate of CO2 removal.
The climate benefitsof both emissions reductions and enhanced CO2 removal  [CDR] will thusoccur on the same time scale as the politicaldecisions that lead to CO2 emissions reductions and/or CDR.

One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2 from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will degas back into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of air CO2 conc to air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why I'm a big fan of consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity addition).  This addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean-->air CO2 flux is reduced or reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio effects (on calcification) of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity addition. Given earth's past successes in mitigating excess global CO2 in this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore Mother Nature's example, but I'm open to better ideas.
-Greg




From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" To: Geoengineering Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PMSubject: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR
List:    1.   I believe this article from last week's Science could be valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either side of geoengineering:      Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable;    H. Damon Matthews 1 and Susan Solomon 2 
    Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 613

RE: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[markcapron]

Greg and Ron,
 
Indeed.  Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative carbon processes.  Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the issues:
 

Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation."
Biochar
BECCS
Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?)
OIF
Lime in the ocean
Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots
Chemical "trees"
Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth)
Diatoms

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org
 
 

 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDRFrom: RAU greg Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 amTo: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering



Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia) will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR, but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway, count me in.
-Greg


As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:


Given the reversibility of air CO2 concentrations and hence CO2-inducedwarming, every increment of reduced or avoidedtemperature increase represents less warming [x, y]that would otherwise persist for manymillenia (Archer et al., 2009). Because post-emissions (i.e., air CO2) removalscan return global CO2 and temperatures to preindustriallevels, they do have the power toavert additional warming or affect cooling on the same timescale as the emissions reductions or removals themselves.Climate warming tomorrow, this year, thisdecade, or this century is predeterminedby both past and future CO2 emissions as well as the rate of CO2 removal.
The climate benefitsof both emissions reductions and enhanced CO2 removal  [CDR] will thusoccur on the same time scale as the politicaldecisions that lead to CO2 emissions reductions and/or CDR.

One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2 from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will degas back into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of air CO2 conc to air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why I'm a big fan of consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity addition).  This addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean-->air CO2 flux is reduced or reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio effects (on calcification) of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity addition. Given earth's past successes in mitigating excess global CO2 in this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore Mother Nature's example, but I'm open to better ideas.
-Greg




From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" To: Geoengineering Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PMSubject: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR


List:    1.   I believe this article from last week's Science could be valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either side of geoengineering:      Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable;    H. Damon Matthews 1 and Susan Solomon 2
    Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 438-439DOI:10.1126/science.1236372 

  2.   I hope someone can help me understand the use of "Irreversible" in the title and, as an example, in the final paragraph:

"Given the irreversibility of CO2-inducedwarming ( 5, 6), every increment of avoidedtemperature increase represents less warmingthat would otherwise persist for manycenturies. Although emissions reductionscannot return global temperatures to preindustriallevels, they do have the power toavert additional warming on the same timescale as the emissions reductions themselves.Climate warming tomorrow, this year, thisdecade, or this century is not predeterminedby past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determinedby future emissions. The climate benefitsof emissions reductions would thusoccur on the same time scale as the politicaldecisions that lead to the reductions."

  Cites 5 and 6 are:
5. S. Solomon, G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, P. Friedlingstein,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 1704 (2009).6. H. Matthews, K. Caldeira, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).

3.  Believing that CDR is real and alive,  I would have preferred to see this (my emphasis added) as:

Given the reversibility of CO2-inducedwarming, every increment of avoidedtemperature increase represents less warming [x, y]that would otherwise persist for manycenturi

Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[RAU greg]

Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given that 
once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia) will 
eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR, but in a 
time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we stop 
emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we might be 
able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd say that 
this 
might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR community perhaps with 
the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway, count me in.
-Greg


As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:

Given the reversibility of air CO2 concentrations and hence CO2-induced
warming, every increment of reduced or avoided
temperature increase represents less warming [x, y]
that would otherwise persist for many
millenia (Archer et al., 2009). Because post-emissions (i.e., air CO2) removals
can return global CO2 and temperatures to preindustrial
levels, they do have the power to
avert additional warming or affect cooling on the same time
scale as the emissions reductions or removals themselves.
Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this
decade, or this century is predetermined
by both past and future CO2 emissions as well as the rate of CO2 removal.

The climate benefits
of both emissions reductions and enhanced CO2 removal  [CDR] will thus
occur on the same time scale as the political
decisions that lead to CO2 emissions reductions and/or CDR.

One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2 from 
air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will degas back 
into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of air CO2 conc to 
air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why I'm a big fan of 
consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity addition).  This 
addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean-->air CO2 flux is reduced or 
reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio effects (on calcification) 
of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity addition. Given earth's past 
successes 
in mitigating excess global CO2 in this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore 
Mother Nature's example, but I'm open to better ideas.
-Greg





From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" 
To: Geoengineering 
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PM
Subject: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR


List:

1.   I believe this article from last week's Science could be valuable to 
this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either side of 
geoengineering:  

Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable;H. Damon Matthews 1 and 
Susan 
Solomon 2
Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 
438-439DOI:10.1126/science.1236372 




  2.   I hope someone can help me understand the use of "Irreversible" in the 
title and, as an example, in the final paragraph:

"Given the irreversibility of CO2-induced
warming ( 5, 6), every increment of avoided
temperature increase represents less warming
that would otherwise persist for many
centuries. Although emissions reductions
cannot return global temperatures to preindustrial
levels, they do have the power to
avert additional warming on the same time
scale as the emissions reductions themselves.
Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this
decade, or this century is not predetermined
by past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determined
by future emissions. The climate benefits
of emissions reductions would thus
occur on the same time scale as the political
decisions that lead to the reductions."

  Cites 5 and 6 are:
5. S. Solomon, G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, P. Friedlingstein,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 1704 (2009).
6. H. Matthews, K. Caldeira, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).


3.  Believing that CDR is real and alive,  I would have preferred to see this 
(my emphasis added) as:

Given the reversibility of CO2-induced
warming, every increment of avoided
temperature increase represents less warming [x, y]
that would otherwise persist for many
centuries. Because emissions removals
can return global temperatures to preindustrial
levels, they do have the power to
avert additional warming on the same time
scale as the emissions reductions themselves.
Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this
decade, or this century is predetermined
by both past and future CO2 emissionsand removals 

The climate benefits
of emissions reductions and removals would thus
occur on the same time scale as the political
decisions that lead to the reductions.

My cites (x and y) might be from Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben, but also this 
list, the Royal Society and the new NRC study   all of which describe various 
CDR approaches.  All mistaken?   I ask why this second version should not be 
the 
more accurate.   



4.  In defense of the authors, whose work I otherwise uniformly admire, I think