>From what I understand this study doesn't include cloud fraction changes, so it's pretty limited. Correct me if I'm wrong
On Sun, 25 Sept 2022, 17:10 Michael Hayes, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Suzanne > > The struggle with future-proofing such large investments and policy > decisions is likely the primary limiting factor in the WH and industry. > Everyone involved wants longterm dependability yet STEM advancements are > now in an exponential rate of increase and new STEM, last years > breakthroughs, are rapidly being made obsolete. > > The WH does likely need an office(r) of CDR STEM, policy, and economics > synthesis simply to short through the many concepts to find STEM > commonalities that can be exploited to help avoid almost immediate STEM > obsolescence. In example, MCB and Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement have > technical commonalities, invest in one and that supports the other, > microalgae cultivation using floating bioreactors has a technical > connection to OAE and OTEC has a technical connection to bioreactors, etc. > The more STEM commonalities we find, the better for the investors and > politicians as it helps future-proof the investment in the STEM. A web of > mutually supportive technology is more reliable than any single tech option. > > This CDR group has done an outstanding job, a world class job, at > detailing and debating the many different CDR options yet finding STEM > commonalities that can be used to future-proof the likely huge investment > of political capital as well as capital itself that CDR now needs may best > help policy makers and investors drop the hammer. > > Best regards > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 7:35 PM Suzanne Reed <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Complex indeed, Michael! Thank you for responding to my comments and >> expanding the scope of the conversation to a more holistic framework. >> Humans have done a right good job of disrupting all ecosystem cycles and >> relationships and the economies that depend on them. Many of our Healthy >> Planet Action Coalition participants are exploring various aspects of >> direct climate cooling and GHGR to contribute to ecosystem restoration. >> You may be interested in the Compilation of Comments on the White House >> Office of Science and Technology Programs-lead study of climate >> intervention research needs found here, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v2eoFQUtXc7J3vX37jJ2dBAJUiBPRNMu/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117772987047166624642&rtpof=true&sd=true >> >> The work of The Climate Foundation <https://www.climatefoundation.org/> >> may be of particular interest if you are not already familiar with it. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Suzanne >> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:10 PM Michael Hayes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the clarity, Suzanne. Biology is never simplistic, the Sahara >>> was likely green not that long ago. >>> >>> I follow marine carbon issues in general and the oceanic deserts in >>> particular. To support terrestrial soil-based solutions, at a >>> multi-gigaton/yr scale, one obviously has to look at the soil >>> water/energy/nutrient nexus needs at the equivalent scale. I support using >>> the oceanic desert-based WENN resources for vast scale soil improvements as >>> that overall land/sea strategy works the planetary C cycle at two important >>> extreams and in a mutually supportive STEM, policy, and economic fashion. >>> >>> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.795#:~:text=Low%2Doxygen%20regions%20have%20expanded,years%2C%20according%20to%20new%20measurements >>> . >>> >>> We have an excess of marine C yet a shortage of soil C. The same can be >>> said for nutrients and marine deserts are likely expanding far faster than >>> terrestrial deserts. Farming the oceanic deserts for WENN resources, that >>> can be applied to vast scale terrestrial efforts, would likely help >>> mitigate marine desert expansion to some extent simply by operating in >>> those waters. We need to cool vasts amounts of seawater, adjust the pH of a >>> vast amount of seawater along with other measures, and as you likely know, >>> with minimal impact on wildlife. >>> >>> Marine Cloud Brightening, artificial upwelling, biomass cultivation, >>> electrolysis, fresh water/ice production etc would be technically >>> supportable while providing upstream WENN resources for vast scale >>> terrestrial efforts. The above does represent a rather complex biotic and >>> abiotic STEM basket, policy and economic basket yet the full spectrum of >>> the critical STEM components is likely available today. Policy and >>> economics of such a vast scale shifting of resources are, as we all >>> recognize, different chapters. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Michael Hayes >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022, 11:43 AM Suzanne Reed <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I appreciated the targeting approach but issues of water supply, tree >>>> species, and species mix are relevant to this topic, especially when there >>>> is intent to rely on reforestation and sequestration as offsets. >>>> >>>> Suzanne >>>> >>>> Suzanne Reed >>>> Healthy Planet Action Coalition >>>> https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/ >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 9:34 AM Albert Bates <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I found this article quite hopeful actually. There have been a lot of >>>>> unsupported reactions to the afforestation of drylands. This study finds >>>>> that after subtracting the albedo effect, reforestation/afforestation has >>>>> a >>>>> nearly 30% net cooling effect. I actually think that the 448 MHa estimate >>>>> (approx nine Spains) is low once in-fill regrowth is fully quantified, not >>>>> just the broadscale open regions surveyed by satellite. BAU Scenarios are >>>>> a >>>>> bit of a red herring because they follow an impossible exponential trend. >>>>> I >>>>> often hear that "deserts have their own ecology" and need to be protected, >>>>> and while that is true to a degree, it is also true that many, if not >>>>> most, >>>>> are recent and anthropogenic. Putting back forests where they once were is >>>>> one means we have to restore balance to the carbon cycle at a planetary >>>>> scale. >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 8:24:09 AM UTC-5 >>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm9684 >>>>>> >>>>>> Forestation of the vast global drylands has been considered a >>>>>> promising climate change mitigation strategy. However, its actual >>>>>> climatic >>>>>> benefits are uncertain because the forests’ reduced albedo can produce >>>>>> large warming effects. Using high-resolution spatial analysis of global >>>>>> drylands, we found 448 million hectares suitable for afforestation. This >>>>>> area’s carbon sequestration potential until 2100 is 32.3 billion tons of >>>>>> carbon (Gt C), but 22.6 Gt C of that is required to balance albedo >>>>>> effects. >>>>>> The net carbon equivalent would offset ~1% of projected medium-emissions >>>>>> and business-as-usual scenarios over the same period. Focusing >>>>>> forestation >>>>>> only on areas with net cooling effects would use half the area and double >>>>>> the emissions offset. Although such smart forestation is clearly >>>>>> important, >>>>>> its limited climatic benefits reinforce the need to reduce emissions >>>>>> rapidly. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9a3ff6a9-0275-4d24-b9ae-bd32aeafbf40n%40googlegroups.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9a3ff6a9-0275-4d24-b9ae-bd32aeafbf40n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Suzanne* >>>> >>>> *Suzanne Reed* >>>> *The Collaboration Connection* >>>> *https://www.collaborationconnection.org/ >>>> <https://www.collaborationconnection.org/>* >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAE0%3DaUCv-oN1n_nPTLbwzPrSM%3DZOfHbBBxNq-%3DgyksF-k0EytA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAE0%3DaUCv-oN1n_nPTLbwzPrSM%3DZOfHbBBxNq-%3DgyksF-k0EytA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> *Suzanne* >> >> *Suzanne Reed* >> *The Collaboration Connection* >> *https://www.collaborationconnection.org/ >> <https://www.collaborationconnection.org/>* >> > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cbtnsFrQzaWznHoDfR1uTJm%3DSHMbBBd%3DV%3Da61Z9PFvOw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cbtnsFrQzaWznHoDfR1uTJm%3DSHMbBBd%3DV%3Da61Z9PFvOw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07au2yHFh2z%3DJmFYu1DtgLtKXkBJMVskfrDJgA0BusQFg%40mail.gmail.com.
