The Gonzalez et al paper was first posted and discussed 6/26/18 on CDR. The
question remains why termination shock from AOA would be any different from
terminating any other CDR? Wouldn't the added alkalinity serve to buffer
post-termination pH drop relative to zero alkalinity addition? Isn't the risk
of termination shock worth taking if the risk of not doing AOA/CDR is greater?
The termination shock of not using central heating/cooling hasn't stopped us
from using central heating/cooling - witness the recent midwest cold event and
casualties(?) The impacts of terminating your cancer meds doesn't stop you from
taking cancer meds(?) Negatives/benefits have to be weighed, and with CDR that
ratio declines every day we fail to reduce CO2 emissions. So let's find the
best interventions in the likely event that we'll need them. Greg
On Friday, February 1, 2019, 3:34:53 AM PST, 'Chris Vivian' via
geoengineering <[email protected]> wrote:
Andrew,
This is not the first time that termination shock has been predicted for a CDR
technique. It was predicted for artificial upwelling by Oschlies et al. (2010)
- see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL041961 -
open access!
They said in the abstract "A second caveat predicted by our simulations is that
whenever artificial upwelling is stopped, simulated surface temperatures and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise quickly and for decades to centuries to
levels even somewhat higher than experienced in a world that never engaged in
artificial upwelling."
Chris.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:42:34 PM UTC, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note : Cross posted due the the curious existence of termination shock
(previously thought of as an SRM artefact) in a CDR technique
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/ 2018GL077847
Enhanced Rates of Regional Warming and Ocean Acidification After Termination of
Large‐Scale Ocean AlkalinizationMiriam Ferrer González Tatiana Ilyina Sebastian
Sonntag Hauke SchmidtFirst published: 21 June 2018https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL077847Cited by: 1AboutSections
AbstractTermination effects of large‐scale artificial ocean alkalinization
(AOA) have received little attention because AOA was assumed to pose low
environmental risk. With the Max Planck Institute Earth system model, we use
emission‐driven AOA simulations following the Representative Concentration
Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). We find that after termination of AOA warming trends in
regions of the Northern Hemisphere become ∼50% higher than those in RCP8.5 with
rates similar to those caused by termination of solar geoengineering over the
following three decades after cessation (up to 0.15 K/year). Rates of ocean
acidification after termination of AOA outpace those in RCP8.5. In warm shallow
regions where vulnerable coral reefs are located, decreasing trends in surface
pH double (0.01 units/year) and the drop in the carbonate saturation state (Ω)
becomes up to 1 order of magnitude larger (0.2 units/year). Thus, termination
of AOA poses higher risks to biological systems sensitive to fast‐paced
environmental changes than previously thought.
Plain Language SummaryClimate engineering (CE) methods are intended to
alleviate the environmental perturbations caused by climate change and ocean
acidification. However, these methods can also lead to environmental issues.
Among all the different CE techniques, the method of artificial ocean
alkalinization (AOA) is commonly discussed. AOA involves the release of
processed alkaline minerals into the ocean, which enhances the uptake of
atmospheric carbon by the ocean while reducing the acidification of seawater.
We study the impacts caused by the termination of AOA on environmental
properties that are relevant for organisms and ecosystems because they are
sensitive not only to the magnitude of environmental change but also to its
pace. We analyze the rate at which the environment changes after termination of
this method using an Earth system model that simulates the response of our
climate to CE. We found that the abrupt termination of large‐scale
implementation of AOA leads to regional rates of surface warming and ocean
acidification, which largely exceed the pace of change that the implementation
of AOA was intended to alleviate. This enhanced rate of environmental change
would restrict even more the already limited adaptive capacity of vulnerable
organisms and ecosystems.
--
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.
--
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.
