Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Jessica Gurevitch]

You are raising very valid points. Also, if the trees run out of nitrogen,
water, etc., which seems very possible, they will stop photosynthesizing
and taking up carbon. It is an interesting idea, but the authors have not
considered many of the limitations and unwanted effects of this idea, which
are very large.
There has been some work on using solar panels to light crops at night to
increase production, which is also interesting, but doesn't do much for
reducing carbon (the crops are harvested after each growing season and
used, so the carbon cycles back to the atmosphere almost immediately).

~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~


On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:59 PM Claudia Wieners 
wrote:

> Original idea, but apart from worrying about unwanted side effects for the
> ecosystem and technical questions about the maintenance of all these lamps,
> cables etc, I wonder whether 16 years is on the short side. Would it not
> take longer than that for the forest to equilibrate, i.e. reach a state
> where the extra uptake is compensated by an extra emission of CO2 from
> rotting biomass? I.e. maybe negative feedbacks kick in only after the 16
> years?
> Of course, the new forest would have a bigger reservoir of carbon, but in
> equilibrium it would maybe stop being a sink. Yet one would have to
> continue lighting the forest forever or at least a long time to keep the
> carbon in the forest because after termination the carbon is released
> again. So some form of direct air capture might have the advantage of
> storing the carbon more safely without constant energy input (for a ton
> already stored).
> Finally, note that Keller et al 2015 did an experiment - admittedly in an
> intermediate complexity model - where they assumed they could afforest the
> whole Sahara (let's just assume for a moment that it could be done
> somehow...). They found significant carbon uptake during the growth of the
> forest but after about 50 years the forest equilibrated, acting as a
> storage but no longer as a sink. And the storage thus created was far, far
> smaller than anthropogenic emissions till now, though of course one might
> argue that there is no silver bullet and one shouldn't dismiss any
> carbon-reducing measure *purely *on the ground that it alone cannot fully
> solve the problem.
>
> Are there any biosphere experts here who can confirm or contradict my
> concerns? Am I mistaken?
>
> Op wo 10 nov. 2021 om 07:54 schreef Geoeng Info :
>
>> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>>
>> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
>> forests at night
>>
>>
>> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
>> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
>> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
>> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
>> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
>> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
>> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
>> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
>> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
>> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
>> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
>> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
>> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
>> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
>> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
>> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>>  outgassing.
>>
>> --
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Claudia Wieners]

Original idea, but apart from worrying about unwanted side effects for the
ecosystem and technical questions about the maintenance of all these lamps,
cables etc, I wonder whether 16 years is on the short side. Would it not
take longer than that for the forest to equilibrate, i.e. reach a state
where the extra uptake is compensated by an extra emission of CO2 from
rotting biomass? I.e. maybe negative feedbacks kick in only after the 16
years?
Of course, the new forest would have a bigger reservoir of carbon, but in
equilibrium it would maybe stop being a sink. Yet one would have to
continue lighting the forest forever or at least a long time to keep the
carbon in the forest because after termination the carbon is released
again. So some form of direct air capture might have the advantage of
storing the carbon more safely without constant energy input (for a ton
already stored).
Finally, note that Keller et al 2015 did an experiment - admittedly in an
intermediate complexity model - where they assumed they could afforest the
whole Sahara (let's just assume for a moment that it could be done
somehow...). They found significant carbon uptake during the growth of the
forest but after about 50 years the forest equilibrated, acting as a
storage but no longer as a sink. And the storage thus created was far, far
smaller than anthropogenic emissions till now, though of course one might
argue that there is no silver bullet and one shouldn't dismiss any
carbon-reducing measure *purely *on the ground that it alone cannot fully
solve the problem.

Are there any biosphere experts here who can confirm or contradict my
concerns? Am I mistaken?

Op wo 10 nov. 2021 om 07:54 schreef Geoeng Info :

> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
> forests at night
>
>
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>
> Abstract.
>
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>  outgassing.
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5cAzC0F%3D%3DhBEjWRomu9WUz3dp7WSEmsa66jS7HQ4p7AoA%40mail.gmail.com.

RE: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Douglas MacMartin]

Any option involves pros and cons, but it is curious to refer to SAI as neither 
scalable nor reversible.  For scalability, it is essentially the only option we 
know for sure can scale (as your own email suggests by choice of defining 
success).  For reversibility, if you stop putting aerosols in, the effect goes 
away.  Note that if you’ve been doing it long enough for it to matter, then the 
time constant of the effect going away is going to be mostly dominated by the 
response times of the climate system, not by the residence time of the 
aerosols.  So it’s true that the termination shock would be a bit more abrupt 
for MCB than for SAI, but that’s probably not that big a deal.  It would seem 
to me that if one wants to do a comparison between methods, then one ought to 
actually evaluate their impacts rather than arbitrarily dismissing them by 
throwing incorrect adjectives around.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Oliver
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 5:06 AM
To: mklee...@well.com
Cc: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; infogeo...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up 
tropical forests at night


Hello Michael,

Absolutely agreed on your point about rich desert ecology, and that we need to 
be humble in the face of the complex earth system. In all likelihood, all 
goeengineering methods are in some way 'simplistic' because they intervene in 
processes which have evolved over time, in symbiosis with the Earth system's 
changing state, as driven from the outside by Milankovich cycles and tectonic 
processes.

However, we are at the point now where we are looking for 'least worst' 
solutions rather than magic bullets which moderate global forcing with little 
impact on important ecosystem services, as they probably don't exist. Hence, 
there is a risk calculation where we may need to accept a limited amount of 
damage to achive the greater good, i.e.,  a reduction in glocal forcing to 
preserve as many ecosystems as possible. Saving every desert ecosystem with 
little biomass may be a luxury we cannot afford.

Furthermore, I would argue that we need to shift away from a 'magic bullet' 
geoengineering paradigm to one which advocates a diverse mix or 'package' of 
smaller scale solutions which all together have a synergetic impact on forcing, 
e.g., a mixture of regional aforestation, white roofs, marine cloud 
brightening, cirrus thinning, enhanced weathering, CCS and so on (these must be 
scaleable, sustainable and quickly reversible). By doing this, we retain the 
option to assess these pathways and then emphasize or deemphasize individual 
options over time as their impacts on society and environment become apparent.

In consequence, one must redefine 'geoengineering' in a way that removes the 
requirement that any one single method needs to have a measurable impact on 
global forcing. An example of this is instead is to call methods 'regional 
geoengineering'. We would also need to refine our notion of what success is for 
these solution. In other words, a reduction in forcing of 0.01 W m-2 might be 
called a success, instead of requiring 0.2 W m-2 or similar as a benchmark 
(arbitrary numbers).  Research would need to reflect this complex mix instead 
of writing paper after paper on the impacts of e.g. global reforestation alone, 
or global SAI alone, and so on.

However, in my opinion SAI should be thought of in a different catgory to 
geoengineering. Recreating Pinatubo or Krakatoa is neither scaleable, or easily 
reversible and hence gives the rest of geoengineering proposals a bad name. On 
the other hand, marine or cirrus cloud seeding and its meteorological impacts 
can be stopped much more rapidly (of course, feedbacks with vegetation may be 
much slower).

Regards

Oliver

--

Dr. Oliver Branch

Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)

University of Hohenheim

Garbenstr. 30

D-70599 Stuttgart



phone: 0711 - 459 -23132


On 10/11/2021 23:52, Michael Kleeman wrote:
Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the 
ecosystem impacts are real.

And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area but 
no less alive in their own way

We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose simplistic 
interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.


On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver 
<mailto:oliver_bra...@uni-hohenheim.de> wrote:
 Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an idea 
as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials into the 
stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather for a minimum 
of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful idea. On the other 
hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting forests are more 
predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Jessica Gurevitch]

Sadly, I know almost nothing about the benthos—we need marine ecologists to 
tell us about that! I’m strictly terrestrial and prefer dry upland systems 
myself. I even avoid fens, marshes, bogs and the like. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2021, at 10:52 PM, Ernie Rogers  wrote:
> 
> 
> Jessica said,
> " Maybe the thing to concentrate on is what would increase long lived soil 
> carbon rather than photosynthesis."
> Thanks, Jessica, great idea.  How about this?  How to do long-lived storage 
> in the sea, using natural processes?
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:54 PM Jessica Gurevitch 
>>  wrote:
>> We hardly know what the impacts of SAI would be on ecological systems and we 
>> really need to learn more. My best guess (and it’s just an evidence-free 
>> guess at this point) is that some organisms and systems would benefit from 
>> SAI, perhaps greatly, and others would be harmed, maybe by a lot.  Much of 
>> that depends on the details, like how much we reduce emissions at the same 
>> time. We need a lot more information.  Certainly what we’re doing now to the 
>> atmosphere and biosphere is harming many systems and organisms, and causing 
>> extinctions and displacements.  Some are thriving, though—unfortunately many 
>> of those doing well are cosmopolitan invasives. 
>> 
>> In my opinion the benefits and risks to ecological systems are inextricably 
>> bound to the fate, well being and suffering of humans and human systems. 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Nov 10, 2021, at 6:07 PM, Michael Kleeman  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the 
>>> ecosystem impacts are real.  
>>> 
>>> And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
>>> pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area 
>>> but no less alive in their own way
>>> 
>>> We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose 
>>> simplistic interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.  
>>> 
> On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver  
> wrote:
> 
  Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an 
 idea as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials 
 into the stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather 
 for a minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful 
 idea. On the other hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting 
 forests are more predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped 
 easily. 
 In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How 
 about lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine 
 forest where delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge 
 batteries or lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few other 
 animal forest species exist in large numbers. In areas of low radiation 
 such a light boost may be just what it takes to increase productivity.
 
 Oliver
 
 -- 
 Dr. Oliver Branch
 Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
 University of Hohenheim
 Garbenstr. 30
 D-70599 Stuttgart
 
 phone: 0711 - 459 -23132
 
 
 On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant 
> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and 
> of biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on 
> nighttime darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or 
> uninformed) consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
> Jessica
> 
> ~~
> Jessica Gurevitch 
> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
> Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
> ~~
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
>> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>> 
>> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical 
>> forests at night
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>> 
>> Abstract. 
>> 
>> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an 
>> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing 
>> light at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify 
>> the carbon sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal 
>> proposal: lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above 
>> the forest canopy. Simulation results show that additional light 
>> increased tropical forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon 
>> per year during a 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease 
>> in atmospheric CO2 and 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Oliver]

Hello Michael,

Absolutely agreed on your point about rich desert ecology, and that we 
need to be humble in the face of the complex earth system. In all 
likelihood, all goeengineering methods are in some way 'simplistic' 
because they intervene in processes which have evolved over time, in 
symbiosis with the Earth system's changing state, as driven from the 
outside by Milankovich cycles and tectonic processes.


However, we are at the point now where we are looking for 'least worst' 
solutions rather than magic bullets which moderate global forcing with 
little impact on important ecosystem services, as they probably don't 
exist. Hence, there is a risk calculation where we may need to accept a 
limited amount of damage to achive the greater good, i.e.,  a reduction 
in glocal forcing to preserve as many ecosystems as possible. Saving 
every desert ecosystem with little biomass may be a luxury we cannot 
afford.


Furthermore, I would argue that we need to shift away from a 'magic 
bullet' geoengineering paradigm to one which advocates a diverse mix or 
'package' of smaller scale solutions which all together have a 
synergetic impact on forcing, e.g., a mixture of regional aforestation, 
white roofs, marine cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, enhanced 
weathering, CCS and so on (these must be scaleable, sustainable and 
quickly reversible). By doing this, we retain the option to assess these 
pathways and then emphasize or deemphasize individual options over time 
as their impacts on society and environment become apparent.


In consequence, one must redefine 'geoengineering' in a way that removes 
the requirement that any one single method needs to have a measurable 
impact on global forcing. An example of this is instead is to call 
methods 'regional geoengineering'. We would also need to refine our 
notion of what success is for these solution. In other words, a 
reduction in forcing of 0.01 W m-2 might be called a success, instead of 
requiring 0.2 W m-2 or similar as a benchmark (arbitrary numbers).  
Research would need to reflect this complex mix instead of writing paper 
after paper on the impacts of e.g. global reforestation alone, or global 
SAI alone, and so on.


However, in my opinion SAI should be thought of in a different catgory 
to geoengineering. Recreating Pinatubo or Krakatoa is neither scaleable, 
or easily reversible and hence gives the rest of geoengineering 
proposals a bad name. On the other hand, marine or cirrus cloud seeding 
and its meteorological impacts can be stopped much more rapidly (of 
course, feedbacks with vegetation may be much slower).


Regards

Oliver

--
Dr. Oliver Branch
Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
University of Hohenheim
Garbenstr. 30
D-70599 Stuttgart

phone: 0711 - 459 -23132


On 10/11/2021 23:52, Michael Kleeman wrote:
Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management 
the ecosystem impacts are real.


And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested 
area but no less alive in their own way


We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose 
simplistic interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.


On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver  
wrote:


 Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful 
an idea as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar 
materials into the stratosphere? An action which will influence the 
global weather for a minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now 
that is a truly awful idea. On the other hand, I would say that the 
consequences of lighting forests are more predictable, and the idea 
is scalable and can be stopped easily.


In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How 
about lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine 
forest where delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge 
batteries or lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few 
other animal forest species exist in large numbers. In areas of low 
radiation such a light boost may be just what it takes to increase 
productivity.


Oliver

--
Dr. Oliver Branch
Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
University of Hohenheim
Garbenstr. 30
D-70599 Stuttgart

phone: 0711 - 459 -23132


On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally 
ignorant of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological 
communities and of biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical 
forests depend on nighttime darkness to survive and function. The 
"unintended (or uninformed) consequences" of this are horrifically 
mind blowing.

Jessica

~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~


On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Ernie Rogers]

Jessica said,
" Maybe the thing to concentrate on is what would increase long lived soil
carbon rather than photosynthesis."
Thanks, Jessica, great idea.  How about this?  How to do long-lived storage
in the sea, using natural processes?

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:54 PM Jessica Gurevitch <
jessica.gurevi...@stonybrook.edu> wrote:

> We hardly know what the impacts of SAI would be on ecological systems and
> we really need to learn more. My best guess (and it’s just an evidence-free
> guess at this point) is that some organisms and systems would benefit from
> SAI, perhaps greatly, and others would be harmed, maybe by a lot.  Much of
> that depends on the details, like how much we reduce emissions at the same
> time. We need a lot more information.  Certainly what we’re doing now to
> the atmosphere and biosphere is harming many systems and organisms, and
> causing extinctions and displacements.  Some are thriving,
> though—unfortunately many of those doing well are cosmopolitan invasives.
>
> In my opinion the benefits and risks to ecological systems are
> inextricably bound to the fate, well being and suffering of humans and
> human systems.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 10, 2021, at 6:07 PM, Michael Kleeman  wrote:
>
> 
> Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the
> ecosystem impacts are real.
>
> And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light,
> pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area
> but no less alive in their own way
>
> We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose
> simplistic interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.
>
> On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver 
> wrote:
>
>  Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an
> idea as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials
> into the stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather
> for a minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful
> idea. On the other hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting
> forests are more predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped
> easily.
>
> In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How
> about lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine forest
> where delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge batteries or
> lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few other animal forest
> species exist in large numbers. In areas of low radiation such a light
> boost may be just what it takes to increase productivity.
>
> Oliver
>
> --
> Dr. Oliver Branch
> Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
> University of Hohenheim
> Garbenstr. 30
> D-70599 Stuttgart
>
> phone: 0711 - 459 -23132
>
>
> On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
>
> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant
> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of
> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime
> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed)
> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
> Jessica
>
> ~~
> Jessica Gurevitch
> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
> Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
> ~~
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
>
>> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>>
>> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
>> forests at night
>>
>>
>> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
>> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
>> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
>> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
>> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
>> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
>> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
>> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
>> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
>> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
>> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
>> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
>> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
>> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
>> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
>> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>>  outgassing.
>> --
>> You received this message 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Jessica Gurevitch]

We hardly know what the impacts of SAI would be on ecological systems and we 
really need to learn more. My best guess (and it’s just an evidence-free guess 
at this point) is that some organisms and systems would benefit from SAI, 
perhaps greatly, and others would be harmed, maybe by a lot.  Much of that 
depends on the details, like how much we reduce emissions at the same time. We 
need a lot more information.  Certainly what we’re doing now to the atmosphere 
and biosphere is harming many systems and organisms, and causing extinctions 
and displacements.  Some are thriving, though—unfortunately many of those doing 
well are cosmopolitan invasives. 

In my opinion the benefits and risks to ecological systems are inextricably 
bound to the fate, well being and suffering of humans and human systems. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2021, at 6:07 PM, Michael Kleeman  wrote:
> 
> 
> Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the 
> ecosystem impacts are real.  
> 
> And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
> pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area 
> but no less alive in their own way
> 
> We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose 
> simplistic interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.  
> 
>>> On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver  wrote:
>>> 
>>  Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an 
>> idea as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials 
>> into the stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather for 
>> a minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful idea. 
>> On the other hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting forests are 
>> more predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped easily. 
>> In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How about 
>> lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine forest where 
>> delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge batteries or 
>> lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few other animal forest 
>> species exist in large numbers. In areas of low radiation such a light boost 
>> may be just what it takes to increase productivity.
>> 
>> Oliver
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Oliver Branch
>> Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
>> University of Hohenheim
>> Garbenstr. 30
>> D-70599 Stuttgart
>> 
>> phone: 0711 - 459 -23132
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
>>> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant 
>>> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of 
>>> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime 
>>> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed) 
>>> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
>>> Jessica
>>> 
>>> ~~
>>> Jessica Gurevitch 
>>> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
>>> Department of Ecology and Evolution
>>> Stony Brook University
>>> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
>>> ~~
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
 https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
 
 Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical 
 forests at night
 
 
 
 Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
 
 Abstract. 
 
 Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an 
 opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light 
 at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the 
 carbon sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal 
 proposal: lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above 
 the forest canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased 
 tropical forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year 
 during a 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in 
 atmospheric CO2 and suppression of global warming. In addition, local 
 temperature and precipitation increased. The energy requirement for 
 capturing one ton of carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon 
 Capture. When the lighting experiment was terminated, tropical forests 
 started to release carbon slowly. This study suggests that lighting up 
 tropical forests at night could be an emergency solution to climate 
 change, and carbon removal actions focused on enhancing ecosystem 
 productivity by altering environmental factors in the short term could 
 induce post-action CO2 outgassing.
 -- 
 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 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Michael Kleeman]

Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the 
ecosystem impacts are real.  

And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area but 
no less alive in their own way

We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose simplistic 
interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.  

> On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver  wrote:
> 
>  Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an idea 
> as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials into 
> the stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather for a 
> minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful idea. On 
> the other hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting forests are 
> more predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped easily. 
> In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How about 
> lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine forest where 
> delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge batteries or 
> lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few other animal forest 
> species exist in large numbers. In areas of low radiation such a light boost 
> may be just what it takes to increase productivity.
> 
> Oliver
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Oliver Branch
> Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
> University of Hohenheim
> Garbenstr. 30
> D-70599 Stuttgart
> 
> phone: 0711 - 459 -23132
> 
> 
> On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
>> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant 
>> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of 
>> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime 
>> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed) 
>> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
>> Jessica
>> 
>> ~~
>> Jessica Gurevitch 
>> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
>> Department of Ecology and Evolution
>> Stony Brook University
>> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
>> ~~
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
>>> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>>> 
>>> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical 
>>> forests at night
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>>> 
>>> Abstract. 
>>> 
>>> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an 
>>> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light 
>>> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon 
>>> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal: 
>>> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest 
>>> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical 
>>> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a 
>>> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and 
>>> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and 
>>> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of 
>>> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting 
>>> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon 
>>> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night 
>>> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal 
>>> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering 
>>> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2 
>>> outgassing.
>>> -- 
>>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> -- 
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com.
> 
> -- 
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Ernie Rogers]

I am sure you are right, Jessica.  I would be interested in hearing your
ideas on how to increase productivity on a global scale, or otherwise
absorb large amounts of CO2.  /Ernie

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:55 PM Oliver 
wrote:

> Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an
> idea as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials
> into the stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather
> for a minimum of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful
> idea. On the other hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting
> forests are more predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped
> easily.
>
> In any case perhaps with some adjustment the idea may have merit. How
> about lighting desert plantations in marginal areas, not in pristine forest
> where delicate flora and fauna exist. Solar power can recharge batteries or
> lighting. Or extreme northern boreal forest, where few other animal forest
> species exist in large numbers. In areas of low radiation such a light
> boost may be just what it takes to increase productivity.
>
> Oliver
>
> --
> Dr. Oliver Branch
> Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)
> University of Hohenheim
> Garbenstr. 30
> D-70599 Stuttgart
>
> phone: 0711 - 459 -23132
>
>
> On 10/11/2021 17:52, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
>
> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant
> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of
> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime
> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed)
> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
> Jessica
>
> ~~
> Jessica Gurevitch
> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
> Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
> ~~
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
>
>> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>>
>> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
>> forests at night
>>
>>
>> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
>> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
>> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
>> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
>> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
>> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
>> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
>> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
>> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
>> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
>> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
>> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
>> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
>> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
>> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
>> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>>  outgassing.
>> --
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5b2789a6-3faa-af9a-11d0-fa565c15e3ee%40uni-hohenheim.de
> 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Daniele Visioni]

Dear all,
ESD is a journal that allows for community comments during peer review.
There’s one already: https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/ 
<https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/>
I haven’t read the paper carefully (nor am I an ecologist) but I trust Jessica 
if she says it’s an awful idea! Possibly your direct feedback on the paper in 
the form of a comment on the ESD discussion could be helpful for everyone,
as it will be publicly accessible to everyone for ever, independently if the 
paper gets accepted or not.

And to respond to Maiken, I don’t think there’s a “we” here (in the sense of 
“we geoengineers”, and probably nobody considers themselves one). 6 academics 
have submitted a paper of their own free volition and probably without asking 
anyone else (at least no ecologists, as far as I can see). If the response from 
the community is that it’s an incredibly awful idea, the thing will probably 
die down on its own, and everyone will have learned something useful (maybe!).

Best,
Dan





> On 10 Nov 2021, at 12:19, Klaus Lackner  wrote:
> 
> The abstract is also wrong about energy consumption.  Photosynthesis is 
> inefficient.  If one percent of the light goes into biomass it is doing well. 
>   You also need to account for the  inefficiency of generating light.   So at 
> best you need a hundred times as much energy as you would get out of carbon 
> in the first place.  Even the worst of air capture is better than that.
>  
> All told this is a huge boondoggle.  It is bad for the environment, it 
> consumes ridiculous amounts of energy, and as a result it is hugely 
> expensive. 
>  
> Klaus
>  
>  
>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
> behalf of Jessica Gurevitch 
> Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 09:52
> To: infogeo...@gmail.com 
> Cc: geoengineering 
> Subject: Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting 
> up tropical forests at night
> 
> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant of, 
> or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of 
> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime 
> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed) 
> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
> Jessica
> 
> ~~
> Jessica Gurevitch 
> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
> Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
> ~~
>  
>  
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  <mailto:infogeo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTClIJTvKo$>
>  
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests 
> at night
> 
>  
>  
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>  
> Abstract. 
>  
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an 
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light at 
> night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon 
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal: 
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest 
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical 
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a 
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and 
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and 
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of 
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting 
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon slowly. 
> This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night could be an 
> emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal actions focused on 
> enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering environmental factors in the 
> short term could induce post-action CO2 outgassing.
> -- 
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Renaud de RICHTER]

 FYI, the article is still in the process of peer review and has not yet
been accepted. You can create an account and comment it
https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/

I agree with Klauss and the energy requirements.
*But I also welcome any new ideas to try to reduce global warming. *

Even if the "proposals" made in this article seem awful to some, it can
provide other researchers or entrepreneurs better ideas?
Maybe on a smaller scale, in some conditions and regions, it could be
applicable without impacting the natural world of ecological communities
and of biodiversity?
Let us imagine for instance that we can still enhance 5x the Miscanthus
productivity (or another plant?) under an agricultural greenhouse, using
artificial light at night, consuming 10x much less clear water or using
slightly salted water in the Sahara, and produce biofuels with it, devoted
to BECCS, then don't you think that lighting up at night, using excess
electricity produced by wind energy, could be justified?
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092913932030603X?casa_token=QqAwJQY5CLgA:kuDKaIRWIVAH7aPSWE7X4EmI-TGTcCjq_qJMosfhOS7DOj-RWRLGjW7KRF3mZ1aIloDb5rYyV6g>



Le mer. 10 nov. 2021 à 18:19, Klaus Lackner  a
écrit :

> The abstract is also wrong about energy consumption.  Photosynthesis is
> inefficient.  If one percent of the light goes into biomass it is doing
> well.   You also need to account for the  inefficiency of generating
> light.   So at best you need a hundred times as much energy as you would
> get out of carbon in the first place.  Even the worst of air capture is
> better than that.
>
>
>
> All told this is a huge boondoggle.  It is bad for the environment, it
> consumes ridiculous amounts of energy, and as a result it is hugely
> expensive.
>
>
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on behalf of Jessica Gurevitch 
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 09:52
> *To: *infogeo...@gmail.com 
> *Cc: *geoengineering 
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution:
> lighting up tropical forests at night
>
> This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant
> of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of
> biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime
> darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed)
> consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
>
> Jessica
>
>
> ~~
> Jessica Gurevitch
>
> Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
>
> Department of Ecology and Evolution
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
>
> ~~
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:
>
> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTClIJTvKo$>
>
>
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
> forests at night
>
>
>
>
>
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>
>
>
> *Abstract.*
>
>
>
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>  outgassing.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving email

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Klaus Lackner]

The abstract is also wrong about energy consumption.  Photosynthesis is 
inefficient.  If one percent of the light goes into biomass it is doing well.   
You also need to account for the  inefficiency of generating light.   So at 
best you need a hundred times as much energy as you would get out of carbon in 
the first place.  Even the worst of air capture is better than that.

All told this is a huge boondoggle.  It is bad for the environment, it consumes 
ridiculous amounts of energy, and as a result it is hugely expensive.

Klaus



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Jessica Gurevitch 
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 09:52
To: infogeo...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up 
tropical forests at night
This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant of, 
or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of 
biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime 
darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed) consequences" 
of this are horrifically mind blowing.
Jessica

~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~


On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info 
mailto:infogeo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTClIJTvKo$>

Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at 
night


Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia

Abstract.

Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an opportunity 
to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light at night. We used 
a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon sequestration and 
climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal: lighting up tropical 
forests at night via lamp networks above the forest canopy. Simulation results 
show that additional light increased tropical forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 
petagrams of carbon per year during a 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in 
a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and suppression of global warming. In addition, 
local temperature and precipitation increased. The energy requirement for 
capturing one ton of carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. 
When the lighting experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to 
release carbon slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at 
night could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal 
actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering environmental 
factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2 outgassing.
--
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 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY*2BwsJV*2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer__;JSUl!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTCSVrwwWc$>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA*2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp*2BRg*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer__;JSUl!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTCkBisvYY$>.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BYAPR06MB53521B6E7C0C983B478A7330F5939%40BYAPR06MB5352.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Jessica Gurevitch]

This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant
of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of
biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime
darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed)
consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing.
Jessica

~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~


On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info  wrote:

> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
> forests at night
>
>
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>
> Abstract.
>
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>  outgassing.
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Maiken Winter]

Dear geoengineers,
I have been a quiet reader of this listserv for years. I am not an expert. And 
I am deeply concerned about the developments going on in our climate and 
natural systems.
But seriously? Are we now thinking about lightening up forests? What effects 
would that have on animals in those forests? Are there studies about that?
Are we willing to do anything to save humanity - which seems just to not want 
to be saved? Shouldn´t any geoengineering suggestions always be coupled with 
the demand to seriously step on the brakes, stop our believe in eternal growth 
and call for an immidiate moratorium in our collective overconsumption of about 
everything? Instead, we are happy that transcontinental flights are finally 
resuming, that new streets are being built to reduce traffic jams, that great 
big representative buildings are being built ... Most people are still in a 
completely wrong, self-destroying mindset. If we cannot change that, then I 
doubt that geoengineering can safe us, because we will destroy other 
life-supporting systems as well - such as intact ecosystems.
Thanks for your insights,
Best,
Maiken
http://www.wissenleben.de



> On 10/11/2021 07:54 Geoeng Info  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
> 
> 
> 
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests 
> at night
> 
> 
> 
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
> 
> Abstract. 
> 
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an 
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light at 
> night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon 
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal: 
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest 
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical 
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a 
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and 
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and 
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of 
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting 
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon slowly. 
> This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night could be an 
> emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal actions focused on 
> enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering environmental factors in the 
> short term could induce post-action CO2 outgassing.
> 
> 
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1144633987.2805623.1636534580003%40webmail.strato.de.