Hi All, I really like the NYT graphics, but I think it's important to keep in mind that CDR is the "turtle" approach -- slow and steady. We have published a similar analysis of the problem in a 2016 article you can find here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/en/pdf/EN15115
As shown in Figure 2 of that paper which I've copied below, most of the benefits of CDR accrue between 2100-2200, when in that scenario, CO2 emissions have dropped to near zero, leading to a linear decrease of anthropogenic CO2 through time at the rate of CDR capture. I'm not sure how wide-spread this viewpoint is, but we see CDR as a multigenerational, centuries-long effort. Analyses that only go out to 2100 are really missing half the story. This has important policy implications, though I know it leads to dismay in some quarters. I take the optimistic view that the figure below is a worst-case scenario and that advances in technology will mean that CO2 capture will become easier, faster, and less burdensome over the next 100 years. Cheers, Steve Romaniello ASU PlanetWorks [image: F2] Caption: Net integrated CO2 emissions for a scenario in which present emission rates continue to increase at 1.8 % per year until a threshold in public opinion is reached in 2050. Thereafter, global CO2 emissions rapidly decrease at 5 % per year. Each line depicts the anthropogenic warming impact of atmospheric CO2 capture at the indicated rate. For all scenarios, atmospheric CO2 capture begins in 2050, gradually ramps up to the maximum rate in 2080, and continues at the maximum rate through 2225. The right axis shows peak anthropogenic warming calculated from cumulative net CO2 emissions. Calculations are based on the model of Stocker (2013, Science) with the addition of a term for CO2 capture. On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 8:24:45 PM UTC-7, chg2 wrote: > > Success can be achieved by eliminating emissions in all of the developed > countries and China; reducing emissions in all of the other developing > countries, including India; and achieving carbon removal. This scenario was > the first one I tried, and the outcome seems about right to me. The carbon > removal potential is quite conservative, but given the current global > investments in CDR, perhaps they have it about right. > > On Sep 6, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Eric Durbrow <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > FYI There is a slick interactive graphic at the NYTimes that lets people > see if they can meet the world’s carbon budget restriction but a > combination of reduced emissions AND achieving Carbon Removal. > > At > > > https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/opinion/climate-change-carbon-budget.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region > > I failed after clicking on Reduce in all geographic areas and Achieve in > Carbon Removal. > > > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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 [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.
