Is it possible for the different teams of the Model Intercomparison Project to now exted their analyses to GHGR Removal, instead of restraint to CDR?
As written on 22nd August 2017, in another post by Phil Williamson (Science Coordinator: UK GGR programme), the UK recently-started a *Greenhouse Gas Removal *research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/researc h/funded/programmes/ggr/). 2017-09-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>: > List and cc Andrew: > > Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention. In > addition to Andrew’s cite below, the full (free) article is at: > > https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf > > To summarize the article from a biochar perspective: the word “biochar” > appears once as a possible natural technology and in the title of one > reference. However, like BECCS, biochar is not one of the CDR approaches > to be considered in this CDR-MIP. The COP 21 and 22 emphases on soil > carbon and the CDR opinions of agronomists and soil scientists will not be > explored in this study. Afforestation/reforestation is included as one of > the three approaches for detail - so a part of biochar and BECCS will be > there, but soil carbon content won’t change much in the models. > > The final pages have some potentially useful graphs. I look forward to > reading some new general CDR cites. > > Ron > > > On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/ > > The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): > Rationale and experimental design > David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5, > Nico Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10, > and Kirsten Zickfeld111GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, > Germany > 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia > 3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, > Australia > 4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh > 5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental > Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK > 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain > Sustainable Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany > 7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal > University, Beijing, China > 8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK > 9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest > National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA > 10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway > 11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada > Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion > started: 17 Aug 2017 > Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic > greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe, > pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction > to mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is > called *Geoengineering*, *Climate Engineering*, or *Climate Intervention* – > deliberate interventions to counter climate change that seek to either > modify the Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 > from > the atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is > called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission > scenarios that stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that > do not exceed 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At > present, there is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the > different types of proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide > Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This > project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to > explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe > the first set of CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions > concerning CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth > system to direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and > storage), and the CDR potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation, > as well as ocean alkalinization. > > *Citation:* Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, > N., Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The > Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale > and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., > https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168, in review, 2017 > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
