Zero Carbon Britain

[Pepperman]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. The eco system is like an elastic band. It gets pushed and it resists. It gets pushed some more and it resists some more. In other words, the eco system may have self regulatory mechanisms already in operation in response to the currently elevated CO2 levels. Reduce those levels suddenly and there may be unintended consequences.

A metaphor for the above might be the taking of certain substances in the human body like, say testosterone used by body builders. As a consequence of flooding their body with testosterone, their gonads stop producing it for themselves. If the external testosterone is stopped suddenly, the person basically seizes up because their body has not been given time to adapt back to having to produce it again for itself.

I expect that CO2 scrubbing would take many decades / centuries.

[biffvernon]

Hmmm......so what is the correct-and-proper-for-all-time CO2 level that we should seek to enforce on our planet?

I don't see an easy answer to that but a starting point would be the level that produces the equilibrium planetary heat balance that results in global temperatures close to that which civilization has evolved with over the last ~5000 years. That's probably nearer to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm than the current ~400ppm.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Hmmm......so what is the correct-and-proper-for-all-time CO2 level that we should seek to enforce on our planet?

I don't see an easy answer to that but a starting point would be the level that produces the equilibrium planetary heat balance that results in global temperatures close to that which civilization has evolved with over the last ~5000 years. That's probably nearer to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm than the current ~400ppm.

So you are planning on fighting off the next Ice Age. Laudable. Perhaps we should let the Fins know that they needn't dig so deep a hole?

[Little John]

Hmmm......so what is the correct-and-proper-for-all-time CO2 level that we should seek to enforce on our planet?

I don't see an easy answer to that but a starting point would be the level that produces the equilibrium planetary heat balance that results in global temperatures close to that which civilization has evolved with over the last ~5000 years. That's probably nearer to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm than the current ~400ppm.

So you are planning on fighting off the next Ice Age. Laudable. Perhaps we should let the Fins know that they needn't dig so deep a hole?

Just to be clear JSD; Is your argument that we that we should not try to regulate CO2 levels lower, that we cannot regulate CO2 levels lower and/or humanity's contribution to CO2 levels are insignificant in either direction?

[woodburner]

Hmmm......so what is the correct-and-proper-for-all-time CO2 level that we should seek to enforce on our planet?

I don't see an easy answer to that but a starting point would be the level that produces the equilibrium planetary heat balance that results in global temperatures close to that which civilization has evolved with over the last ~5000 years. That's probably nearer to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm than the current ~400ppm.

5000 years is insignificant in the life of planet Earth. Up to a couple of hundred years ago there was not much of a problem globally. Odd instances like Easter Island where the population destroyed their habitat were a local problem. Perhaps now is just the way things would go anyway but we think we can do something to stop it. Perhaps we're wrong.

[Billhook]

Hmmm......so what is the correct-and-proper-for-all-time CO2 level that we should seek to enforce on our planet?

I don't see an easy answer to that but a starting point would be the level that produces the equilibrium planetary heat balance that results in global temperatures close to that which civilization has evolved with over the last ~5000 years. That's probably nearer to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm than the current ~400ppm.

There is no such 'correct and proper for all time' CO2 level, and yours is the first suggestion I've heard that Carbon Recovery should be used for anything more than restoring the pre-industial CO2 level of around 275 ppmv. Given that with rapid growth of a new global industry in biochar + co-poduct methanol that restoration will take a hundred years, any decisions on CO2 level thereafter are future generations' concern, not ours.

To put the 275ppmv level in perspective, the feedback loop of rising water vapour began during the gradual C19 warming at its rate of 7% per degree Celsius, with CO2 well below 300ppmv.
- The next was the start of Albedo Loss with the decline of global snow and ice cover beginning in the 1950s, but with the timelag of ~30yrs due to ocean thermal inertia it was in response to the 1920s CO2 level of around 305ppmv.
- The next observed was in 1962, with the microbial decay of peat bogs due to raised CO2, with worldwide reports of a 6%/yr rise in the DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon) in the outflow streams, from where it quickly outgasses. How much earlier this began is unknown, but at when first observed CO2 was at about 315ppmv. The output continues to grow at 6%/yr, and is on track for an annual emission equal to present anthropogenic CO2 output by 2070.

From this perspective, restoring a 285ppmv level might be quite stable, but the precautionary principle requires the restoration of the natural level of around 275ppmv and the end of antho-experiments with the atmosphere.

While there is no prospect of doing so swiftly enough to affect the immediate warming threat of global crop failure and geopolitical destabilization, Carbon Recovery alongside Emissions Control offers a low cost (and only) means of minimizing the peak level of CO2, potentially before 2050 and below 450ppmv, which would greatly reduce the acidification damage to marine biodiversity on which the terrestrial ecology is fundamentally dependent.

Our dependence on both of these sets the degree of urgency of getting worldwide Carbon Recovery under way.

Regards,

Lewis

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Just to be clear JSD; Is your argument that we that we should not try to regulate CO2 levels lower, that we cannot regulate CO2 levels lower and/or humanity's contribution to CO2 levels are insignificant in either direction?

Why must my argument be constrained by your choices?

Before we start on such a massive global venture we should be fairly certain of what we want to achieve; what it will cost to achieve; and how we'll know when we've achieved it.

If trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280ppmv will actually take (for instance) 2000 years and require the output of solar panels covering half the planet to power it then we might as well give up on the idea now.

In order to even start to calculate that we need to know what figure of CO2 the various experts find acceptable.

Plants were quite prolific in the Devonian with 2000ppmv. Mammalian life even managed to evolve during the Cretaceous with 1500ppmv.

Perhaps my argument is best summarised by the idea that instead of shouting at the incoming tide we would be better advised to move our deckchairs ashore. Particularly as we have so many deckchairs to move and precious few resources with which to move them.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

While there is no prospect of doing so swiftly enough to affect the immediate warming threat of global crop failure and geopolitical destabilization, Carbon Recovery alongside Emissions Control offers a low cost (and only) means of minimizing the peak level of CO2, potentially before 2050 and below 450ppmv, which would greatly reduce the acidification damage to marine biodiversity on which the terrestrial ecology is fundamentally dependent.

Our dependence on both of these sets the degree of urgency of getting worldwide Carbon Recovery under way.

Your view of what is good for human civilisation looks to be locked in the very recent past.

It is just possible that maybe CO2 of around 600ppmv would ensure a lasting end to ice ages and a very favourable crop growing environment. From that perspective future generations would see CC as short-sighted meddling that doomed the entire Northern Hemisphere to de-population.

The world will not end at 450ppmv. It will just have changed. We shall have to adapt.

[kenneal - lagger]

I don't think that Billhook is talking about Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) but about the sequestration of biochar in the soil produced by pyrolysing agricultural wastes with a coproduct of a fuel such as biodiesel. As he said this should be, and can be, achieved using small, local plants so that there is very little additional energy needed for transportation or powering the system.

[biffvernon]

Before we start on such a massive global venture .

The massive venture has already happened with humankind shifting CO2 from 270 to 400. We need to undo what we've done. Get back to 270 asap. Just halting the increase would be a step in the right direction but even that seems utterly impossible with the way folks behave right now.

[biffvernon]

There is no such 'correct and proper for all time' CO2 level,

But there is a level that was conducive to the establishment of human civilization. For all it's faults, I'm quite fond of human civilisation and would like to see it continue forever, even to the point when we have flying cars.

[Little John]

Before we start on such a massive global venture .

The massive venture has already happened with humankind shifting CO2 from 270 to 400. We need to undo what we've done. Get back to 270 asap. Just halting the increase would be a step in the right direction but even that seems utterly impossible with the way folks behave right now.

I do understadn your argument B, and have some inclination towards it myself. However, in the final analysis, I am against it for the following reasons. Firstly, we cannot be sure what self regulatory mechanism are not already in play due to the carbon we have chucked into the atmosphere over the last few centuries. Thus, if we suddenly bring those carbon levels back down, we might find the climate cannot keep up. In other words, we may be best advised to bring it back down at roughly the speed at which we introduced it. In any event, in geo-engineering terms, that is probably going to be difficult enough as it is. Secondly,I know in my gut that if humans begin to try and manage the climate in order to mitigate the effects of carbon, then this will not be done in order to repair the damage we have done. Instead, it will be used as an engineering excuse to wreak even more damage.

Most humans simply need to F--k off. At which point, the earth will heal itself thank you very much and the problem will be solved for both the remaining humans and also for the rest of life.

[kenneal - lagger]

The one or two hundred years of the fossil fuel revolution so far, which might seem a long time to us, is a blink of the eye of geological time. Any geo-engineering would take us about the same time anyway I would have thought. It will take twenty years to decide which system to use and how to role it out. Something like biochar production then has to be rolled out on a worldwide scale. that's not going to be a quick process.

The advantage of biochar is that it would replace to a great extent the current reliance on gas based nitrogen fertilizers, especially in tropical climes where is has been well proving in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.

[woodburner]

I fail to see how a CO2 reduction is going to be achieved in a short time. CO2 produced from fossil fuels is an exothermic process. It is the heat we have wanted. Presumably to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere will require an endothermic reaction.Where will the heat come from? Or am I missing something?

[biffvernon]

I suppose we could stop burning carbon and use solar power to drive a carbon sequestration strategy. We don't have to actually reduce the CO2 - it could just be stuffed down holes in the ground (aka CCS).

Pigs might fly and we may not be doomed.