Dear Prof. Crutzen,
many thanks for your friendly comment to our ISA method. It is your
second one I got from you during the long lasting period about the ISA
method. Remember, in 2002 you gave a first comment about the ISA method
to Dr. Rolf Sartorius of the German Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Since these
old days a huge quantity of new aspects of this complex natural climate
cooling process became revealed. But every week new surprising aspects
of this process arise as you could notice from my comment.
Please let me take this chance to correct the bad mistake I did in my
comment within the first line of the fourth paragraph: Instead of the
lowest part of the stratosphere the ISA method is restricted to the
lowesst part of the troposphere!
Warm regards,
Franz D. Oeste
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "Crutzen, Paul" <paul.crut...@mpic.de>
An: "oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
Gesendet: 02.09.2017 21:36:47
Betreff: Re: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon
Emissions
Thank you for these comments.
Sent from my iPad
On 1. Sep 2017, at 13:54, Franz Dietrich Oeste
<oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com> wrote:
Gaia's system is much more complex as most climate engineers might
imagine: plant roots use chemical, mechanical and biological means to
extract nutrients and micronutrients out of the ground within they
grow. Roots excrete CO2 and organic complexants into the ground and
they cooperate with mykorrhiza fungi to activate the dissolution of
all kind of minerals like quartz, fieldspar, calcite, magnetite,
hematite, goethite, phosphate minerals etc. Additional the roots creep
into smallest rock joins and use mechanical pressure induced by growth
to widen the joints. The CO2 concentration level within the soil where
plant roots grow is up to two orders of magnitude higher than in the
atmosphere. Plants living within anaerobic wetland habitats like
willow, alder, reed, rush, water lilly even pump oxygen by their roots
into their anaerobic habitat to help microbes living around their
roots to oxidize toxins like ammonia and hydrogensulfide. The positive
effect to the climate of these wetland plants is their direct help to
minimize emissions of methane from the wetlands and to produce
microbial generated sulfate even from sulfur containing minerals like
pyrite. The plant root induced oxidation products sulfate and nitrate
act as fertilizer and further, additional to the root-exceted oxygen,
are used by the wetland soil microbes to oxidize methane before it has
the chance to emit from the wetland.
Summing up, plants do much more than greenhouse gas depletion by
assimilation: additional they enhance CO2 capture by weathering of
continental surfaces and prevent from methane emission. Further they
generate sulfate which is used as methane depletion oxidant in oxygen
depleted parts of the ocean and at the surfaces of the sediments. The
latter even reduces methane emission.
These efficient plant-induced climate cooling methods deserve support.
The rcent most praised and supported CE measure is the SRM method. SRM
has no greenhouse depleting potential. And SRM does just the opposite
to this natural climate control: the sunshine-dimming SRM method
generates its aerosol plume above the whole planets surface. According
to the SRM solar radiation dimming the CO2 depletion of all planets
plant and cyanobacterial life doing CO2 and methane depletion by
assimilation and weathering enhancement becomes reduced. Thus SRM does
probable more harm to planets ecosystems than helping them to survive.
We analyzed the most efficient natural climate cooling system by dust
which was activ during the glacial times. It is simple, needs only
iron-containing dust and sea spray, acts only in restricted regions
within the lowest part of the stratosphere. According to the results
of our analysis we developed the technical equivalent of Gaia's
greenhouse gas depletion CE method: the ISA method - description can
be found at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/ The ISA method
activates even the part of natural CE methods described above.
But as often as we tried to gain notice, resonance or discussion by
the google group about our ISA method, attention kept very restricted.
Reason for this low attention level can't be the "disadvantage" of the
ISA method's technical simplicity and its low technic and economic
expense. According to the SRM method aerosols or aerosol precursors
have to become lifted to hights of at least 20 km above ground: this
catapults technic and economic expenses into ranges orders of
magnitude higher than necessary for the ISA method. Might be
difficulties in comprehension the complexicity of its acting the
reason?
Franz D. Oeste
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
An: "Geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "scott.john...@arstechnica.com" <scott.john...@arstechnica.com>
Gesendet: 31.08.2017 21:03:41
Betreff: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon
Emissions
https://medium.com/s/how-geoengineering-really-works/the-tricky-future-of-capturing-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-218963d12f97
"If you’re thinking the solution is as easy as planting trees, I have
some bad news for you: While it’s true that photosynthesizing plants
take in carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen, they really only take up
enough carbon to build their own cells. And when a plant dies and
decays, most of that carbon ends up right back in the atmosphere.
Forests aren’t so much “lungs” that constantly filter out carbon
dioxide as they are standing stores of it. That means that,
practically speaking, reforestation could only pull as much CO2 out
of the atmosphere as past deforestation put up there in the first
place.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/> estimated that human changes to the
landscape (mostly deforestation) added about 180 billion tons of
carbon to the atmosphere between 1750 and 2011. Globally, the next
decade of our greenhouse gas emissions could just about equal that
amount. So even if we expanded forests to their pre–Industrial
Revolution extent (an unlikely proposition), climate change would be
far from solved."
GR That's not to say that there couldn't be ways to secure the carbon
fixed by plants (biochar, BECCS), but it's not obvious that this
should involve forests if land use efficiency is to be maxed, nor
necessarily using land plants. Then the usual DAC discussion. No
mention of enhanced weathering, listed by the IPCC as having no
biophysical limits, unlike plant-based methods.
--
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
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://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
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
