Cross-posting thread, due to relevance. I'm unaware of any modelling that has looked into the CO2 dissolution effect of below-pre-industrial polar cooling. This would likely be at both poles, due to the need to avoid a shift in the ITCZ
Comments from SRM geoengineering experts on this approach is particularly welcome. Andrew On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 06:55 Thomas Goreau, <[email protected]> wrote: > A major factor in the Ice Age drawdown, which is claimed to be due to iron > fertilization of phytoplankton seems instead/also to be the increased > formation of very cold deep water around Antarctica with very high > dissolved CO2 content due to the cold temperatures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhDPresident, Global Coral Reef AlliancePresident, > Biorock Technology Inc.Coordinator, Soil Carbon AllianceCoordinator, United > Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing > States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies37 Pleasant Street, > Cambridge, MA [email protected] > <[email protected]>www.globalcoral.org > <http://www.globalcoral.org>Skype: tomgoreauTel: (1) > 617-864-4226Books:Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility > Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing > CO2 Increasehttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392 > <http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>Innovative Methods of > Marine Ecosystem > Restorationhttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734 > <http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>* > > On Aug 14, 2018, at 7:24 AM, Charles Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Note the following quote from the “Dust in the Wind” website that was > cited: > > "Although Martin had proposed that purposeful iron addition to the > Southern Ocean could reduce the rise in atmospheric CO2, Sigman noted that > the amount of CO2 removed though iron fertilization is likely to be minor > compared to the amount of CO2 that humans are now pushing into the > atmosphere.” > > “The dramatic fertilization that we observed during ice ages should have > caused a decline in atmospheric CO2 over hundreds of years, which was > important for climate changes over ice age cycles,” Sigman said. “But for > humans to duplicate it today would require unprecedented engineering of the > global environment, and it would still only compensate for less than 20 > years of fossil fuel burning.” > > On Aug 10, 2018, at 6:26 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > > Your claim that "the solutions to runaway global warming lie in the soil > and terrestrial vegetation, not the oceans" appears to conflict with a > dominant natural cooling mechanism of our planet. > > As I mentioned in reply to comments from Greg Rau, a paper published in > Science available at Dust in the wind drove iron fertilization during ice > age > <https://www.princeton.edu/news/2014/03/21/dust-wind-drove-iron-fertilization-during-ice-age>, > found that “iron fertilization of Southern Ocean plankton can explain > roughly half of the CO2 decline during peak ice ages”. This scale of > impact, removing about 50 parts per million of CO2, could potentially be > replicated in time frames relevant to anthropogenic climate change, > especially since this increase in primary productivity due to dust also > involves increased deposition of carbon to the ocean floor, as explained by > Hendy <http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/306>. > > The massive increase in ocean primary productivity in the ice ages, when > CO2 level fell by 100 ppm, did not produce anoxia, or the other > hypothetical adverse effects that people have posited, as indicated in > benthic sediments. The amount of unused nutrient in the High Nutrient Low > Chlorophyll regions of the world ocean, more than sixty million square > kilometres in size, is enough to significantly increase the ocean primary > biomass, with likely flow-on benefits for biodiversity and cooling. > > Clearly there is much more need for research, especially computer > modelling and field tests. The rationale is that working out the best ways > to mimic the natural cooling feedback amplifiers of the ice age, for > example using iron salt aerosol > <https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/>, could well remove more > carbon than the decarbonisation plans of the Paris Accord, at a fraction of > the cost and risk. > > Robert Tulip > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Thomas Goreau <[email protected]> > *To:* Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>; " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; > Soil Age <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, 10 August 2018, 5:20 > *Subject:* [CDR] Ocean carbon versus land carbon sequestration > > Unfortunately these errors are all too typical of the sort of nonsense > about marine carbon widely propagated in the popular press. > > Terrrestrial biomass is around 200 times greater than ocean biomass. > > Dissolved organic carbon is very resistant to decomposition, it is > composed of residues inedible to bacteria that lasts for thousands of years > but forms slowly. > > Most terrestrial biomass is soil carbon with lifetimes of centuries to > millennia, and woody tree trunks with lifetime of decades to centuries, but > most ocean biomass dies, rots, or is eaten and returned to the atmosphere > as CO2 in just days. > > All this stuff recently posted about growing marine biomass as a carbon > sink is literally pie in the sky, you just can’t grow it fast enough and > keep it from recycling to make the difference needed to atmospheric CO2. > > Soil carbon enhancement is the only likely way to cost-effectively store > carbon and bank it to increase positive future benefits in soil fertility > and food production. > > On the other hand most CDR proposals are far more costly, and by removing > CO2 and blocking the natural recycling of carbon, are just running down the > future capacity of the biosphere to safely regulate global atmospheric > composition, temperatures, water supplies, and food, our planetary life > support systems. > > Soil carbon enhancement could draw down the dangerous excess CO2 to safe > levels in decades if we used state of the art carbon farming methods, but > unfortunately only a few people are now doing so. > > The solutions to runaway global warming lie in the soil and terrestrial > vegetation, not the oceans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhDPresident, Global Coral Reef AlliancePresident, > Biorock Technology Inc.Coordinator, Soil Carbon AllianceCoordinator, United > Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing > States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies37 Pleasant Street, > Cambridge, MA [email protected] > <[email protected]>www.globalcoral.org > <http://www.globalcoral.org/>Skype: tomgoreauTel: (1) > 617-864-4226Books:Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility > Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing > CO2 Increasehttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392 > <http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>Innovative Methods of > Marine Ecosystem > Restorationhttp://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734 > <http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>* > > On Aug 9, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-photos-of-ocean-carbon-molecules-hold-clues-to-future-warming/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-08-09_top-stories&spMailingID=57152538&spUserID=MzMzNDg5MjEwMjQ1S0&spJobID=1461217435&spReportId=MTQ2MTIxNzQzNQS2 > > "From undulating surface to inky black depths, Earth’s oceans are littered > with the carcasses of tiny life-forms called phytoplankton that in life > form the basis of the marine food chain. > > These microscopic ghosts contain a reservoir of carbon estimated at a > staggering 662 gigatons—200 times greater than the amount stored in all > living plants and animals—that could come back to haunt us if unleashed > from its watery grave as planet-warming carbon dioxide. > > Some of the carbon-containing molecules in these plankton remnants will > remain locked away for millions of years on the seafloor, but some will > break down and enter the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. A huge portion will > continue to circulate freely in the ocean for generations. But exactly > which molecules are destined for which fate—and therefore how much of this > vast carbon pool is headed for the atmosphere via ocean warming, > acidification, sunlight or digestion by microbes—is an outstanding > question. Answering it requires a clearer picture of the structure of the > molecules that contain this carbon. An international team of scientists has > now taken the first “photographs” of these molecules in an effort to start > parsing that out. This first glimpse suggests that while a catastrophic > breakdown and release of carbon seems unlikely, there is much left to > understand about the behavior of oceanic carbon." > > GR - Some inexcusable errors here. Carcasses of phytoplankton do not > constitute 662 Gt C, but rather dissolved organic carbon (DOC) derived from > biomass (mostly marine) constitute some 700 Gt C in the ocean (IPCC 2013, > Fig. 6.1). Living marine biomass is only 3 Gt. Meantime, living biomass on > land is some 500 Gt C. So no way is DOC "200 times greater than the [C] > amount stored in all living plants and animals". Nevertheless, we indeed > need to make sure that the DOC doesn't "come back to haunt us" such as if > climate change accelerates DOC respiration. For further perspective, the > ocean contains 38,000 Gt C in dissolved inorganic form, dwarfing any other > reservoir in contact with the atmosphere (850 Gt C). I.e it's pretty clear > where nature likes to store C; shall we follow her lead or try to do > something different? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2099503084.5215637.1533840934819%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2099503084.5215637.1533840934819%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/961C82C0-86F5-4EA3-A5A7-8E0C96D5064D%40globalcoral.org > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/961C82C0-86F5-4EA3-A5A7-8E0C96D5064D%40globalcoral.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2067804819.5304943.1533907563519%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2067804819.5304943.1533907563519%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/96B09B1A-1F5B-46F3-8680-3208818348D6%40globalcoral.org > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/96B09B1A-1F5B-46F3-8680-3208818348D6%40globalcoral.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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.
