Arctic Amplification, driving temperature increases up to 4x faster than the rest of the world, is melting Permafrost at alarming rates that will soon see it’s emissions eclipse even large countries.
HI Tom I looked up the numbers on fires and found a similar problem, if one includes the increasing period of ecosystem recovery and sequestration equivalence, coupled with soil outgassing from the degraded environments then some areas may never recover as the world warms especially peatlands. As a result the accumulative emissions grow each year and this does not include other emissions or heat pulses and black soot. Am estimate by AI adds an extra 5.5-7.5gtco2 by 2050 which may more than double with soil degassing especially peat land which may never recover. The UN expects the number of fires to double by 2100
The terrestrial carbon sink is responsible for 8-10 gigatonnes of annual CO2 uptake. In addition to new emissions from the melting of permafrost and boreal fires the sinks lose some of their ability to uptake as much CO2 as when they( collectively ) were healthier. So if Carbon capture and removal is to be effective it has to counter not only the permafrost emissions but also make up for the weakened carbon sinks while we human continue fossil fuel emissions. Three conditions still deteriorating . Carbon capture seems a sad joke under these conditions and any time it is mentioned without a strong emphasis on curtailing fossil fuel investments, drilling, mining and burning I think I am reading science fiction and fantasy.
It’s like we are in a fast moving car that is in a four wheel drift with a semi truck barreling towards us and the only thing we can think of is to find a new station on the radio.
Its a good question. I have done a couple or articles on the subject. I'm in favour of research but we are far away from being able to implement anything safely yet.
I do think that it's step 3 in the process though. Step 1 has to be decarbonising our activities, if we don't so that first, SRM is just an ever increasing bandaid that doesn't address things like ocean acidification. Step 2 is carbon removal. Only when progress is being made on these two is it worth looking to buy time to implement them fully through SRM.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection seems like the most likely, but Ocean Iron Fertilisation has a lot going for it. It could provide for increased rain and cloud brightening in targeted areas which has a double advantage. It won't lower temperatures by much, but it will help with things like drought and wildfires.
Here are the links to the two article. I hope that helps.
Thanks for your reply and the 2 links to the 2 great posts you wrote. Back 10 years ago, I was more into cdr and definitely algae was on the top of my list. Iron fertilization looked promising for cdr but then if you have cdr ( especially in ocean waters ) you can alkalize the waters (OAE). So algae or phytoplankton seemed to show more promise. A few years back, I got more into the need for srm for even cdr to work efficiently. We need healthy carbon sinks that are becoming sources from the sinks. So, have been following srm methods with the yins and hangs. I came up with an "srm cocktail" that includes OIF.
Jeff's Brightini or Brightarita recipe:
1. 1 part Arctic SAI ( avoid Antarctic 'til ozone safety established). A doable now. Arctic stratosphere reachable by current aircraft.
2. 2 parts brightening up built up land areas in low latitude zones( well insolated )that are well populated.
3. 2 parts marine SKY brightening. Clouds will follow but NaCl is up to 97% reflective itself. Just like the ship tracks were created by sulfur emissions 95% of the cooling was not the clouds but the loose sulfur aerosols. Churn up salt spray by those same ships daily.
4. 1 part OIF. CLAW theory with DMS. Hopefully a little cooling, cdr, and one in one shot.
I think it's fair to say we are very close to 1.5, maybe ahead, maybe behind us. There has to be some averaging to smooth out natural variability - El Niño and so on. A centred average is better but relies on a prediction of the future so is tricky. The standard 10 year past average is also wrong as it basically gives you the level 5 years ago. Linear projections are also a problem, since acceleration is evident even on longer timescales.
Detailed informative article.
..meant OAE in one shot..
An article in the conversation yesterday on extreme melting events in the arctic
https://theconversation.com/fusion-extrema-en-el-artico-el-nuevo-rostro-del-deshielo-acelerado-por-el-cambio-climatico-269573
HI Tom I looked up the numbers on fires and found a similar problem, if one includes the increasing period of ecosystem recovery and sequestration equivalence, coupled with soil outgassing from the degraded environments then some areas may never recover as the world warms especially peatlands. As a result the accumulative emissions grow each year and this does not include other emissions or heat pulses and black soot. Am estimate by AI adds an extra 5.5-7.5gtco2 by 2050 which may more than double with soil degassing especially peat land which may never recover. The UN expects the number of fires to double by 2100
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/number-wildfires-rise-50-cent-2100-and-governments-are-not-prepared
https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2022/02/08/greenhouse-gas-emission-impact-from-peatland-fires-underestimated-by-200-300-shows-new-study
https://www.carbonbrief.org/forests-taking-longer-to-recover-from-severe-megafires-since-2010/
The terrestrial carbon sink is responsible for 8-10 gigatonnes of annual CO2 uptake. In addition to new emissions from the melting of permafrost and boreal fires the sinks lose some of their ability to uptake as much CO2 as when they( collectively ) were healthier. So if Carbon capture and removal is to be effective it has to counter not only the permafrost emissions but also make up for the weakened carbon sinks while we human continue fossil fuel emissions. Three conditions still deteriorating . Carbon capture seems a sad joke under these conditions and any time it is mentioned without a strong emphasis on curtailing fossil fuel investments, drilling, mining and burning I think I am reading science fiction and fantasy.
It’s like we are in a fast moving car that is in a four wheel drift with a semi truck barreling towards us and the only thing we can think of is to find a new station on the radio.
Excellent analogy, looking for a soundtrack for the end of the world.
Tom,
As Earth burns and drawdown remains lame, do you propose any particular srm method ( at least to be well studied ) to reduce the polar meltdown?
Hi,
Its a good question. I have done a couple or articles on the subject. I'm in favour of research but we are far away from being able to implement anything safely yet.
I do think that it's step 3 in the process though. Step 1 has to be decarbonising our activities, if we don't so that first, SRM is just an ever increasing bandaid that doesn't address things like ocean acidification. Step 2 is carbon removal. Only when progress is being made on these two is it worth looking to buy time to implement them fully through SRM.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection seems like the most likely, but Ocean Iron Fertilisation has a lot going for it. It could provide for increased rain and cloud brightening in targeted areas which has a double advantage. It won't lower temperatures by much, but it will help with things like drought and wildfires.
Here are the links to the two article. I hope that helps.
https://drtomharris.substack.com/p/we-need-to-start-talking-about-solar
https://drtomharris.substack.com/p/paying-the-iron-price
Thanks for your reply and the 2 links to the 2 great posts you wrote. Back 10 years ago, I was more into cdr and definitely algae was on the top of my list. Iron fertilization looked promising for cdr but then if you have cdr ( especially in ocean waters ) you can alkalize the waters (OAE). So algae or phytoplankton seemed to show more promise. A few years back, I got more into the need for srm for even cdr to work efficiently. We need healthy carbon sinks that are becoming sources from the sinks. So, have been following srm methods with the yins and hangs. I came up with an "srm cocktail" that includes OIF.
Jeff's Brightini or Brightarita recipe:
1. 1 part Arctic SAI ( avoid Antarctic 'til ozone safety established). A doable now. Arctic stratosphere reachable by current aircraft.
2. 2 parts brightening up built up land areas in low latitude zones( well insolated )that are well populated.
3. 2 parts marine SKY brightening. Clouds will follow but NaCl is up to 97% reflective itself. Just like the ship tracks were created by sulfur emissions 95% of the cooling was not the clouds but the loose sulfur aerosols. Churn up salt spray by those same ships daily.
4. 1 part OIF. CLAW theory with DMS. Hopefully a little cooling, cdr, and one in one shot.
We are already over 1.5 degrees, can cooentators please stop ignoring reality
I think it's fair to say we are very close to 1.5, maybe ahead, maybe behind us. There has to be some averaging to smooth out natural variability - El Niño and so on. A centred average is better but relies on a prediction of the future so is tricky. The standard 10 year past average is also wrong as it basically gives you the level 5 years ago. Linear projections are also a problem, since acceleration is evident even on longer timescales.