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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 am > To: [email protected], Geoengineering > <[email protected]> > > 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:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *To:* Geoengineering <[email protected]> > *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 re*movals* > *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 emissions* and 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 the intended word rather than "irreversiblity" might have replaced > "ir" with (awkwardly) "non-utilized" or "un-utilized". The "ir" strikes > me as guaranteeing a physical impossibility, for which no proof is > offered. I think this important as CDR gets too little attention anyway, > to be saddled with "irreversible" > > Thoughts? > > Ron > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
