Hi John,
please remember, we did change emails about our discussion paper in
ESDD, the scientific discussion forum of ESD:
Climate engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control: the
Iron Salt Aerosols method
This paper is accessible and open for interactive public discussion
until 21 Sep 2016 at:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/
According to the results of the ISA method you could add some more
actions again climate warming to the diagram by using the ISA method as
climate cooling mean: Depletion of climate heaters like tropospheric
gases and aerosols like methane, CO2, ozone, organic aerosols, black and
brown carbons as well as VOC plus climate cooling cloud albedo increase.
During the beginning of the emission increase of men-made greenhouse
gases from power works, industry, traffic, and further activities the
emissions of SO2, NOx, dust and organics increased nearly parallel. The
latter are responsible for the production of inorganic and organic acid
aerosols increasing the cloud cover. Reaction of the additional acids
with sea-salt aerosol increase the liberation of HCl. According to the
ISA method HCl (via iron(III)chloride) becomes oxidized by sunshine
photolysis in the presence of iron oxide aerosols to methane depleting
°Cl. The ongoing trend to reduce SO2, NOx and dust emissions will not
only help to warm up the climate by reducing the cloud cover; it even
will reduce the efficiency of the ISA method because it needs HCl to
activate the iron(III)oxide aerosol. Because the ISA method might use
aerosols of iron(III)chloride instead of iron(III)oxides it may overcome
this problem.
Regards,
Franz
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>
An: "M V Bhaskar" <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; "Ben Sanderson"
<bsan...@ucar.edu>; "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>;
"Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; "P. Wadhams"
<p...@cam.ac.uk>; "Paul Beckwith" <pbeck...@uottawa.ca>; "Sev Clarke"
<sevcla...@me.com>; "Ronal Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>; "Brian
Launder" <brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk>; "Alan Page"
<a...@greendiamondsystems.com>; "Emily Lewis-Brown"
<em...@lewis-brown.net>
Gesendet: 30.08.2016 23:33:48
Betreff: Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative
Emissions | Climate Central
Hi Bhaskar and everyone,
I have drawn the attached diagram to include all the major
interventions I think are required for climate restoration. I have put
a target of 2050, which I think could be achieved with a determined
international collaboration, especially to save the sea ice. (If the
Arctic Ocean gets locked into a seasonally ice-free state, then severe
climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible.)
In order to actually halt anthropogenic global warming well below 2C by
2050, climate forcing has to be quickly reduced. My rough calculations
suggest that it needs to be halved by 2030 if it is to be near zero by
2050. I assume that emissions can be reduced 70% by 2030 and that CDR
will have grown such as to remove twice as much CO2 as being emitted by
2030. Thus by 2030 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere should already
be falling.
I have put three basic means of CDR: increasing biomass as wood,
putting carbon in the soil, and increasing biomass in the oceans:
(i) Increasing biomass as wood requires afforestation and improved
forest management (as Alan Page points out).
(ii) Putting carbon in the soil can be done with biochar or by growing
plants with long or longer roots. Food productivity can be increased
at the same time.
(iii) Increasing biomass in the oceans can be done by ocean
fertilisation to promote photosynthesing algae, such as diatoms, which
then promote the whole food chain while removing CO2 from the water and
oxygenating it. This has the potential to at least double food from
the sea for human consumption. CO2 can also be drawn down in large
quantities with kelp farming.
Reductions in methane, black carbon and other climate forcing agents
are also required, to achieve near zero climate forcing by 2050.
Diatoms with nutrients can be spread over areas of methane emissions to
promote methanogens. Much black carbon is coming from tundra fires
which can be suppressed.
Restoring the Arctic involves increasing the albedo, and the target
might be, by 2050, to return the snow and ice to the levels they were
in the 1980s before both started retreating exponentially.
BTW, Sev Clarke has mentioned to me several other interventions, but
the diagram is not intended to cover all possibilities and I didn't
want it to become too complex.
Cheers, John
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, M V Bhaskar <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ron
I have posted many time on this group about restoring productivity in
lakes and oceans by growing Diatom Algae.
This too would be commercially viable.
Regards
Bhaskar
On Thursday, 25 August 2016 20:56:38 UTC+5:30, Ron wrote:
John, list, et al:
Apologies if this comes to you twice. Am still at the conference
hotel and have had trouble sending. This time much shorter.
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
wrote:
John, list et al:
Re your almost last sentence(emphasis added):
“BTW, I would also recommend an ambition to restore land and ocean
productivity to their levels of a few thousand years ago, before
mankind started to denude soils and sea of nutrients.”
I am pleased to report that we have just finished the 2016 Biochar
conference at Oregon State University (Corvallis, OR), and that
great progress has been made since our last in 2013. I would guess
at least three times more commercial presence and activity than
then. Many new reports of cost effectiveness - even as little as
one-year payback.
I would amend your sentence to express an ambition not to restore
but to double.
Ron
On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:25 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Benjamin,
I should have mentioned olivine crushing because it has a huge role
to play in bringing down the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, for
example directly by scattering on the beach or indirectly by
promoting diatoms or soil improvement.
Re emissions reductions, I probably made a mistake in my earlier
email, because I was assuming the maximum rate of emissions
reduction, suggested to be 7% per annum, was an exponential
reduction with a halving of emissions every 10 years and thus never
reaching zero. But the rate will be more linear than that, making
it feasible to obtain an emissions reduction to 30% in 10 years and
to near zero in 15 years.
As well as this reduction, starting now, I propose immediate
aggressive CDR over the next 10 years (including olivine crushing,
biochar and ocean fertilisation) to obtain an equalisation of
drawdown with emissions, thus achieving a zero net input of CO2 to
the atmosphere, aka "carbon neutrality", by ~2025. This will be
the peak of CO2 level in the atmosphere. The CDR will be exactly
offsetting 30% the current level of emissions, assuming that
maximum 7% annual reduction is maintained over the 10 years.
CDR should continue to be ramped up over the following 20 years, to
obtain a halving and then a quartering of the climate forcing due
to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, i.e. taking the level from its
peak in ~2025 down to 340 ppm and then to 310 ppm.
If IPCC were to accept this as a legitimate "representative
concentration pathway", then there could be the ambition of climate
restoration by 2050, with CO2 and CO2eq back to near pre-industrial
levels resulting in a cessation of global warming well below the
<2C target.
In addition to CDR, there would need to be measures to reduce
non-CO2 forcing agents: to reduce fugitive methane: to suppress
methane from the Arctic and from wetlands; to reduce black carbon,
especially from tundra fires; and, most urgently, to save the sea
ice, prevent disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet and restore
albedo in the Arctic. The ambition might be to restore the levels
of albedo and greenhouse forcing agents to their pre-industrial
levels by 2050.
BTW, I would also recommend an ambition to restore land and ocean
productivity to their levels of a few thousand years ago, before
mankind started to denude soils and sea of nutrients.
I am looking forward to your response.
Kind regards, John
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
<r.d.sc...@uu.nl> wrote:
<Snip>
--
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.
--
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.
