tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58590077291021158482024-03-06T10:03:30.551+01:00Folke Günther´s blogenvironment global warming carbon sequestration abrupt climate change ecologyFolkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-1088708745783987382009-03-30T16:32:00.006+02:002009-03-31T12:35:29.862+02:00Montbiots’ rejection of biochar<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CFOLKEG%7E1%5CLOKALA%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:hyphenationzone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-update:auto; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:14.2pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} h1 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:12.0pt; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:3.0pt; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:14.2pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:16.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-font-kerning:16.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal tabell"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">At first</span></span>, I was somewhat confused by the critical texts against the use of biochar as a carbon dioxide reduction agent issued by the famous environmentalist George Monbiot.
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Apart from some obvious exaggerations (‘turning the planet into charcoal’, 'primary source of world heating fuel’) and misunderstandings, he talks about <i style="">the destructions of the forests</i>, <span style=""> </span><i style="">enormous monoculture plantations</i>,<span style=""> </span>and so on, that would be the effects of large scale use of charcoal, or biochar, as the term is used to differ it from fossil coal. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">He also talks repugnantly and ironically against the obviously beneficial by-products of producing char; the increased plant production from the enhanced microbial activity achieved by mixing char into the soil, and the use of heat and tars emitted as by-products from the charring procedure (pyrolysis).<span style=""> </span>He claims that biochar proponents say that these by-products could replace the use of fossil fuels throughout the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">At first, I just thought that Monbiot and others with him, just reacted with some sort of conditioned reflex to protest against anything that looks as a behavioural turning or the introduction of a method that could be used generally, but is different from what we do today. However, Monbiots part of it surprised me, since he had </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">earlier </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">accepted and approved other issues that are far more radical.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">But then</span></span>, I realised what was the fundamental mistake, not only by </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Monbiot, but also by some of the biochar proponents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Either</span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">, they think about removing <i style="">all</i> the excess carbon from the atmosphere.
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Immediately, in one stroke.
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">That is at least 35 ppm worth, or 2.12 x 35 Gt carbon (= 75 Gt), or almost <i style="">three times</i> the current net annual </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">plants </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">production of coarse biomass. It would wipe out the plant cover.
<br /><span style=""> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><b style="">Or</b>, they think about removing <span style="font-style: italic;">all </span>the current emission (8 Gt C) of carbon dioxide, <i style="">plus</i> hopefully, an extra Gt annually, to successively decrease the carbon dioxide content in the air and move out of the danger zone. That would require about two third of the annual production, leading to diversity loss and ruthless exploitation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><b style=""><i style="">In that respect, Monbiot is perfectly right.</i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">But</span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">, let us, just for a second, imagine that a <span style="font-style: italic;">responsible </span>way to solve the problem of climatic carbon dioxide excess could be thread. Then, I imagine that a maximum of 15% -20% of the net annual biomass production could be appropriated for charring. That is about the same size as the global forestry sector, which certainly has had severe adverse effects on the face of Earth. But, in contrast to the forestry industry, biomass for carbonisation can be of any kind, from rice husks and other harvest surplus to twigs and branches, to plants purposely grown for carbon dioxide absorption.
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Just look at your local environment with ‘<i style="">the eyes of a sequester</i>’! Plant </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">production for food, to increase local diversity, or to absorb nutrient leakage does not exclude charring of the residues or decaying plants. A ‘<i style="">black revolution’ </i>does not necessarily exclude an ethically correct management.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Charring just 15% of the global net production does not considerably change the global atmospheric carbon dioxide content. But most of us agree that it is impossible to char more, because it will undermine our life support system, thus only let us jump from the frying-pan into the fire.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">But here, the normally futile way of answering the climate change problem starts to make sense; If we, simultaneously wi</span></b><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">th increasing charring, could <i style="">considerably</i> reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, say, with 90%, then, the emissions would be <i style="">smaller</i> than the possible sequestration!</span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB"> With the figures above, the sequestration <i style="">exceeds</i> the emissions with about 1-2 Gt per year.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"> <span style="font-size:85%;">This reduction in the use of fossil fuels will also reduce our capacity to make food from oil (We call this activity <i style="">agriculture.</i>), but that is another story…</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Trying to obtain these combined goals means that we would have started a route towards a <i style="">real decrease</i> of the global carbon dioxide content <i style="">together</i> with a possible increase in biodiversity and soil fertility.</span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicTZxQphJIvqEP1lw5NhR120RMRBxp74_deFourParvq337uSvFqjGlyZ7fgr6HgISg7m7yeHjiKogSln1a6dXX96YDmMHj7_prZvEIPKs7NwTatVi5qS5kgFQlpimih_YXLKiB4nFu96t/s1600-h/tp_19047_image001.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 222px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicTZxQphJIvqEP1lw5NhR120RMRBxp74_deFourParvq337uSvFqjGlyZ7fgr6HgISg7m7yeHjiKogSln1a6dXX96YDmMHj7_prZvEIPKs7NwTatVi5qS5kgFQlpimih_YXLKiB4nFu96t/s320/tp_19047_image001.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5318989061833260674" border="0" /></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">In the attached graph, a scenario assuming an </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">increasing popularity of charring co</span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">mbined with an emission reduction to 90 % over a period of 20 years is assumed. Of course it is severely unrealistic, but it points out that there is a least a <i style="">theoretical</i> possibility to release ourselves out of the current problems. It also shows that such a Herculean effort also may stop the increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content within two decades.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">[<i style="">Be like the blackbird: It sees the morning long before the sun has risen</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></p> Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-47906950481736157142008-07-01T15:19:00.005+02:002008-12-11T00:17:11.618+01:00Pure optimistic fantasy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLP_rh2vs79W8hcuAOwNbvPmG3lgsoh6zyQxiWviEOrJn9B-_L0l5I5Wgn_V_4IQFzJFzqsRnzGTwMperp86i1z75YHODCCLx7A1tV_zR3oHf-o5pn9Lp4z8ON6jfviPvxBHS0X24gUzA/s1600-h/co2cloud.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLP_rh2vs79W8hcuAOwNbvPmG3lgsoh6zyQxiWviEOrJn9B-_L0l5I5Wgn_V_4IQFzJFzqsRnzGTwMperp86i1z75YHODCCLx7A1tV_zR3oHf-o5pn9Lp4z8ON6jfviPvxBHS0X24gUzA/s320/co2cloud.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218035284134690754" border="0" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Assume, for a moment, that all people of the world made a decision to stop global warming by reducing emissions at the same time as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Here, I will not deal with the necessary emission reduction of 90%, but look at the sequestration side: How could people be encouraged to create charcoal and bury it in soil in amounts large enough to make a difference?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">It is not hard to persuade growers and farmers to put charcoal in the soil, sine the benign effects are so many and visible that any grower will start, once they see the effects, at home or by someone else. The problem is that he farmers and growers are so few, and the amounts so large. We have to remove 70 gigatonnes (70 000 000 000 000 kg) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere only to come to a <i style="">reasonably</i> safe level (350 ppm).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not diminishing at all. On the contrary, it is increasing with about 8 gigatonnes annually. That represents an <i style="">increase</i> in carbon dioxide level with more than 3 ppm.<span style=""> </span>The numbers speaks for themselves. I will not discuss how the emission reduction might be done. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">So, how to make people interested in carbon dioxide burying?<span style=""> </span>Say, that it is possible to annually char about 12-15% of the global net production of biomass, about the same size as the global forest industry. That would make it possible to annually remove about 2 gigatonnes from the carbon cycle, so it not ends up in the atmosphere again.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Some nations (<st1:country-region st="on">Sweden</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Finland</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Norway</st1:country-region>, the <st1:country-region st="on">Netherlands</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">UK</st1:country-region> and <st1:state st="on">British Columbia</st1:state> in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region>) have started to tax the emissions of carbon dioxide, assuming people by that would reduce their emissions. The Swedish tax is 1 SEK, about $ 0.16, per kilo carbon dioxide .We have an entrance here.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In my fantasy, I will decree <b style="">a carbon dioxide tax for all emissions</b>, all over the world. No exceptions for heavy polluters, as we have here in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Sweden</st1:place></st1:country-region> . Say, that the global tax would be half of the one in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Sweden</st1:place></st1:country-region> (0.5 SEK, or $0.08, £0.04, €0.05 per kilo carbon dioxide emitted)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I can imagine the shriek echoing all over the world after almighty me have imposed that tax. I<br />also realise that it would not decease the emissions very much, just lead to more money in circulation.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3EvwlMGNcjQE-Q0iBaheH5W-kCbpP8E828WTjSPA3d5zzSa9n-NjSFcHsdZ0tD7RxHDINGrAbdWzyTHgwkRAxbwQnz_PILO6ecpU_4o6xivhyphenhyphenTWhmvhcjhhxfLRMvbtWRc7OiuhG9CYvC/s1600-h/money+bag2.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3EvwlMGNcjQE-Q0iBaheH5W-kCbpP8E828WTjSPA3d5zzSa9n-NjSFcHsdZ0tD7RxHDINGrAbdWzyTHgwkRAxbwQnz_PILO6ecpU_4o6xivhyphenhyphenTWhmvhcjhhxfLRMvbtWRc7OiuhG9CYvC/s320/money+bag2.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218036072440889778" border="0" /></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">But all these money (2.4 thousand billion dollars, counted as the current emissions) could also be seen as an asset if they are set to the right action.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">While fantasizing, we also introduce the notion of a <i style="">fair carbon dioxide tax</i>. As all people (in this perfect world, ruled by me) have to <b style="">pay</b> for carbon dioxide emissions, they should also get a chance to <b style="">earn</b> from drawing carbon dioxide back. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">So, I make another decree: <b style="">Those who bury carbon in the soil shall be paid the same amount as the emission-makers have to pay for their emissions</b>. (<i style="">Here comes some chemistry in: As carbon dioxide has the molecular weight of 44, but carbon only has the weight of 12, the weight of <span style=""> </span>carbon that is put into the soil must be multiplied with 44/12=3.7 for the sequesterer to get the right payment</i>). Firstly, that would lead to an interesting effect: The busy sequesterer, working in the field, would be quite interested in reducing his “carbon dioxide footprint”, since hat would reduce his net income. He, also, has to pay emission tax if he emits carbon dioxide .</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">But, most interesting is that everybody, all over the world (perhaps not the guys living on <st1:place st="on">Greenland</st1:place>) would have the opportunity to get a <i style="">real</i> income from carbon sequestering. Given the above tax rate, the sequestering of two tonnes of carbon per hectare farmland (which is easy, done simply by the crop residues) should get receipts for that corresponding to $ 600. As this easily could be done just using crop residues, it is not competing with food production at all. Furthermore, after digging the char into the soil, the production will increase by more than 50% the following years.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Naturally, objections against this scheme can be numerous, including problems of controllability, bribing etc. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In a charring plant of a larger size, also the pyrolysis gasses (60% of the biomass) can be industrially utilized for numerous uses, or for energy. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">But that is another story.</span></p>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-54958649190110527662008-05-13T09:53:00.003+02:002008-05-13T10:05:20.254+02:00Right observation, wrong conclusion<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Some time ago, I got an enthusiastic e-mail from a friend.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">He told me he have had a compost heap at home<br />(Really a heap of leaves, not the neat thing you often find in a residential garden. It had been staying there for years, with just a slight decease in volume).<br />After having repeatedly listening to me talking of the benefits of adding char to compost and soils, he thought that he should give it a try. So he took some leftover barbeque char and put in the compost heap. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">That was last autumn. He forgot everything until some weeks ago when he happened to stroll by. The heap had disappeared! Instead of the heap of semi-mouldered leaves, there was a much smaller heap of something rather looking like soil, with lots of earthworms in it. Plus the char.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Then he went to the computer and mailed me: --“ <i style="">I am a believer</i> <i style="">…!</i>”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">----------------------------------- </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In last week’s number of <i style="">Science</i>, (2 May), David Wardle, Marie-Charlotte Nilsson och Olle Zackrisson delivers an article: "<i style="">Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus</i>". They have done exactly the same observation, that charcoal increases soil meabolism, using a controlled measurement method during a ten-year long test. They used three types of <st1:metricconverter productid="1 gram" st="on">1 gram</st1:metricconverter> bags containing respectively charcoal, humus and humus + charcoal, letting them stay in the soil for up to ten years.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The investigation revealed that the reduction in weight of the bags containing both charcoal and humus was much larger than the bags containing only charcoal or only humus.<br />Just like my friend with the compost heap found out.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">So long, so well. A fair conclusion would have been that the<b style=""> charcoal increases the soil metabolism</b>. Not mentioned in the report, but the also found increased vegetation around the bag with humus + char.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Sadly, they did not stay with that. They also jumped to a conclusion where they claim that the increased microbial activity <span style="font-style: italic;">break down humus particles at a rate that counteracts the carbon sequestration</span> effect of the carbon.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-GB">The latter conclusion</span></b><span lang="EN-GB">, however, <b style="">is wrong</b>.<br />Since the humus particles would have been broken down later anyhow, a faster breakdown will not counteract the carbon sequestration made by the incorporation of carbon particles in soil.<br />Just like the compost heap of my friend; waiting some more years would have changed an un-charred heap into the same composted state as the one with char added.</span></p> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The decomposition rate of the humus in the soil has nothing to do with the carbon sequestration capacity of the charcoal. This capacity is only influenced by the longevity of the charcoal in soil (which is many thousands of years)<br /></span></p>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-21795951689498380632008-03-18T15:00:00.004+01:002008-03-18T18:13:58.604+01:00Critical numbers: Where should Humanity Aim?James Hansen and his associates are currently working with a manuscript called "<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?</span>", available in the link above.<br />In it, they conclude that, to be out of the immediate danger of tipping our life support system into a state where it no longer can be considered a life support system to us (the humanity), the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere should be <span style="font-weight: bold;">below 350 ppm</span>.<br /><br />The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is 385 ppm today.<br /><br />This means that the atmosphere contains about 74 Gt <span style="font-style: italic;">too much</span> carbon. Every year, about 7 Gt more is released. Say, as a thought experiment, that <span style="font-weight: bold;">all </span>emissions, 100%, are stopped within 20 years (don't ask me how), leading to a total breakdown of our current society. Even that would mean additional emissions of about 70 Gt <span style="font-style: italic;">more, </span>leading to a CO2 concentration of 418 ppm (if the oceans don't suck up anything more, perhaps 400 ppm if they are friendly enough to do that).<br />CO2 levels like that would probably lead us far beyond several tipping points.<br />Even if not, the resulting climate would not feed the population, not to talk about the potential for floodings.<br /><br />So, if disaster is threating whatever we do, should we give up?<br /><br />No, since there is one more possibility: If the efforts to decrease emissions are combined with a <span style="font-weight: bold;">massive sequestration</span> of carbon, then it is possible to back away from the ominous carbon dioxide levels.<br />As the incorporation of plant charcoal in the soil obviously has a lot of benign effects (Google: <span style="font-style: italic;">Terra Preta</span> ), increasing crops, reducing nutrient loses and so on, why shouldn't we start immediately?Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-74494564001002926282008-03-04T09:43:00.005+01:002008-03-04T10:27:54.470+01:00The carbon numbers III have several times been asked about the amount of carbon existing in excess in the atmosphere, and the possibilities to remove it within reasonable time. Therefore, I will provide the figures as far as I know them, and the reasoning behind them.<br />If you can't stand numbers, stop reading <span style="font-style: italic;">here</span>.<br /><br />The global annual net primary production (NPP) varies, but is estimated to be between 70 and 100 Gt per year, by different sources. This is the annual biomass growth in the plant cover of the Earth. For ease of calculation, let's take 80 Gt as the number. Say that 50% of this is thin roots and leaves, not usable for charring. Remains 40 Gt C that is <span style="font-style: italic;">theoretically </span>available for charring each year.<br />Assume furthermore that efforts to create charcoal for carbon sequestration results in an annual sequestration of <span style="font-weight: bold;">2 Gt C </span>as charcoal. That would mean an addition of four tonnes of char per hectare globally, certainly a war-like effort. The global forest product production 2004 was abut 9.5 Gt (FAO), with a carbon content that can be estimated to 3.8 Gt C, so we are speaking of a herculean, warlike efforts in charring, <span style="font-style: italic;">about half the size of the global forest industry</span>.<br />However, char can be made from not only forest products, but also straw and husks from agriculture, as well as forest products that are useless to the industry, which makes it at least theoretically possibie to reach a goal of 2 Gt. That is <span style="font-weight: bold;">about 8.5% </span>of the above figure of coarse biomass production.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jim Hansen and Pushker Kharecha of </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA" title="NASA">NASA</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies" title="Goddard Institute for Space Studies">Goddard Institute for Space Studies </a><span style="font-style: italic;">have pointed out some faults in my calculations in the following paragraph, why I </span><span style="font-style: italic;">below</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> present it in the revised form :</span><br />The carbon dioxide "cloud" is presently about <span style="font-weight: bold;">475 Gt </span>too large (counted as accumulted emissions of C, carbon). Due to buffering from seas and other ecosystems, the atmosphere only contain 220 Gt of carbon The number is the difference between the atmospheric content in pre-industrial time (280 ppm) and that of today (384 ppm). (Of this figure, about 33% is from deforestation). (Figures from Richard A Houghton, Woods Hole Research Center, one of the IPCC guys, and Jim Hansen/Pushker Kharecha of NASA) Imagine that you could take <span style="font-style: italic;">all </span>this away and convert it into charcoal. That amount would add about 955 tonnes of char per hectare agricultural land globally. This wll give the soils a carbon content f about 25%, not very far from the <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2809044795781727003">Terra Preta</a> soils. But with the above efforts, 2 Gt p.a., it would take about two hundred years to reach that point.<br /><br />The global carbon dioxide effluents of today are equivalent of about <span style="font-weight: bold;">7 Gt C</span>. Assume, for a moment, that the people and their leaders around the world will face the imminent danger of a sudden and irreversible climate change and decide to do everything possible to avoid it. They decide to start the above sequestration <span style="font-style: italic;">combined </span>with a sudden braking in carbon emissions, e.g. an 85% reduction in 25 years, leveling out on roughly <span style="font-weight: bold;">1 Gt C</span> per annum, leading to a <span style="font-style: italic;">net sequestration</span> of about <span style="font-weight: bold;">1 Gt C </span>per annum.<br />Then, given that the reduction is even over time, one could expect that the carbon dioxide cloud could start reversing after about 18 years.<br /><br />I hope sincerely, that that is not too late.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-39249154007102761352008-01-24T16:44:00.000+01:002008-01-24T21:02:32.299+01:00The carbon numbersI have several times been asked about the amount of carbon existing in excess in the atmosphere, and the possibilities to remove it within reasonable time. Therefore, I will provide the figures as far as I know them, and the reasoning behind them.<br />If you can't stand numbers, stop reading <span style="font-style: italic;">here</span>.<br /><br />The global annual net primary production (NPP) varies, but is estimated to be between 70 and 100 Gt per year, by different sources. This is the annual biomass growth in the plant cover of the Earth. For ease of calculation, let's take 80 Gt as the number. Say that 50% of this is thin roots and leaves, not usable for charring. Remains 40 Gt C that is <span style="font-style: italic;">theoretically </span>available for charring each year.<br />Assume furthermore that efforts to create charcoal for carbon sequestration results in an annual sequestration of <span style="font-weight: bold;">2 Gt C </span>as charcoal. The global forest product production 2004 was abut 9.5 Gt (FAO), with a carbon content that can be estimated to 3.8 Gt C, so we are speaking of a herculean, warlike efforts in charring, <span style="font-style: italic;">about half the size of the global forest industry</span>.<br />However, char can be made from not only forest products, but also straw and husks from agriculture, as well as forest products that are useless to the industry, which gives us a large possibility to reach a goal of 2 Gt. Which is <span style="font-weight: bold;">about 8.5% </span>of the above figure of coarse biomass production.<br /><br />The carbon dioxide "cloud" is presently about <span style="font-weight: bold;">475 Gt </span>too large (counted as C, carbon). The number is the difference between the atmospheric content in pre-industrial time (280 ppm) and that of today. (Of this figure, about 33% is from deforestation). (Figures from Richard A Houghton, Woods Hole Research Center, one of the IPCC guys.)<br />Imagine that you could take this amount away and convert it into charcoal. That amount would add about 95 kg char per hectare agricultural land globally. 38 bags of barbecue char. Not very much . But with the above efforts, 2 Gt p.a., it would take more than three hundred years to reach that point.<br /><br />The global carbon dioxide effluents of today are equivalent of about <span style="font-weight: bold;">7 Gt C</span>. Assume, for a moment, that the people and their leaders around the world will face the imminent danger of a sudden and irreversible climate change and decide to do everything possible to avoid it. They decide to start the above sequestration <span style="font-style: italic;">combined </span>with a sudden braking in carbon emissions, e.g. an 85% reduction in 25 years, leveling out on roughly <span style="font-weight: bold;">1 Gt C</span> per annum, leading to a <span style="font-style: italic;">net sequestration</span> of about <span style="font-weight: bold;">1 Gt C </span>per annum.<br />Then, given that the reduction is even over time, one could expect that the carbon dioxide cloud could start reversing after about 18 years.<br />I hope sincerely, that that is not too late.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-52089092715790682952007-12-13T09:42:00.000+01:002007-12-13T11:45:45.300+01:00Bali: the lose of the losersToday, the Bali meeting to combat global warming is still not over, but however the ultimate outcome, one thing is to be said for sure: Because <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">they focus on emission reductions <u>only</u>, they </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">will not offset global warming.</span><br />Naturally (sad to say) the statesmen will not be able to agree. Vested interests prevail.<br />But.<br />Assume, quite hypothetically of course, that they concur of the utmost severeness of the problem and agree on, <span style="font-style: italic;">and stick to</span>, a 90% decrease of the emissions of carbon dioxide during the nearest 15 years, starting today.<br />Even such an effort would give the atmosphere an additional amount of 20 Gt carbon dioxide, assuming the annual emissions of today is 7 Gt.<br /><span><span style="font-weight: bold;">E</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">ven this amount might lead to abrupt climate changes</span>. And we must do <span style="font-style: italic;">everything possible</span> to avoid that. (Read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197539701&sr=1-1">Mark Lynas 'Six degrees')</a><br /><br />So, even if the politicians stand together and make bold decisions, we all will probably lose.<br /><br />So what to do? Pray the last prayer, take farewell of our closest, let the musicians play "Nearer, My God, to Thee" ?<br /><br />No. There is a further possibility. If we <span style="font-weight: bold;">combine </span>a <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">radical reduction</span> of emissions with a strenuous effort in <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">carbon sequestration</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">with charcoal</span>, say of 2 Gt annually (see <a href="http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-it-need-both-to-solve-problem.html">below</a>), then the actual amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will start to diminish within 7-10 years, and we might get off with nothing more than the fright (and more fertile soils).<br /><br />Otherwise, we might all loose.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-48353175095956063062007-11-07T09:16:00.001+01:002008-12-11T00:17:11.795+01:00How much space do you need?For some years ago, I was asked the above question by one of my students.<br />Like most scientists, I started to answer: -- "That depends ... "<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Then, I realized that it actually was a rather appropriate answer.</span><br />If you are talking about sitting space, it is not the same as what you need for producing your food demand for a year, or for making a good climate for your and your fellow creatures.<br />It is actually a series of spaces, each depending on the function of the next.<br />The attached picture attempts to give a notion of that.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">The figure is clickable, if you have problems with reading the texts.</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: right;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL_wder4DPGj7ce5HLcXMbRDDQBxyUGl7h-WqOm2myYKG87gyd6HDckatAy6YqOPd9PTiFIVXwLxeHrJiMz6kZOq5eb3NnkyH11eL1wncXZ_idEKuzQqp9bSMRbvIxrmkA0pKcFvA3T_Jl/s1600-h/Ytbehov.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 374px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL_wder4DPGj7ce5HLcXMbRDDQBxyUGl7h-WqOm2myYKG87gyd6HDckatAy6YqOPd9PTiFIVXwLxeHrJiMz6kZOq5eb3NnkyH11eL1wncXZ_idEKuzQqp9bSMRbvIxrmkA0pKcFvA3T_Jl/s320/Ytbehov.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5130012971431770978" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: left;">The reasoning is quite obvious. You need more space to produce food than you need to sit at the dinner table. And you need more processes and space to maintain a healthy atmosphere than you need to breath (although that area is a quite large, considering the 90 sq. m. inner area of your lungs).<br /><br />The picture is just a rough outline, just attempting to draw attention to the different spaces needed for our life support, and our dependence of them. But it can also be seen as an attempt to bring figures to the global carrying capacity, with or without fossil fuels. Since the surface area of the planet Earth is estimated to around 150,000,000 km<sup>2</sup>, the figure on the sketch would indicate that the<span style="font-weight: bold;"> carrying capacity for 'climate production' is exceeded at 7.5 billion people, given our current lifestyle.</span><br />It is certainly not sure that the use of fossil fuels will eternally increase the carrying capacity of the globe.<br />Perhaps the opposite.<br /></div></div>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-1027832873246227412007-10-22T09:26:00.000+02:002007-11-07T11:00:14.386+01:00A new way to tell the same thing<p id="runhead">GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L19703, doi:10.1029/2007GL031018, 2007</p><p id="runhead"> Received <span id="received">15 June 2007</span>; accepted <span id="accepted">7 September 2007</span>; published <span id="published">6 October 2007</span>. </p> <p style="font-weight: bold;" id="title"><span style="font-size:130%;">Long term climate implications of 2050 emission reduction targets</span></p> <p class="affiliation">Andrew J. Weaver<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada</span><br />Kirsten Zickfeld<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada</span><br />Alvaro Montenegro<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada</span><br />Michael Eby<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Abstract</span><br />A coupled atmosphere-ocean-carbon cycle model is used to examine the long term climate implications of various 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. All emission targets considered with less than 60% global reduction by 2050 break the 2.0°C threshold warming this century, a number that some have argued represents an upper bound on manageable climate warming. <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">E</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ven when e</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">missions are stabilized at 90% below present levels at 2050, this 2.0°C threshold is eventually broken. </span>Our results suggest that if a 2.0°C warming is to be avoided, direct CO<sub>2</sub> capture from the air, together with subsequent sequestration, would eventually have to be introduced in addition to sustained 90% global carbon emissions reductions by 2050.</p><p>(My italics)</p><p>As I said in the <a href="http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-it-need-both-to-solve-problem.html">blog of 28/10, (why it needs two..)</a> , it is not enough with reductions. More efficient measures need to be done. Only an extreme reduction of the effluents of greenhouse gases <span style="font-style: italic;">plus </span>a strenuous sequestration effort <span style="font-style: italic;">might </span>do the job.</p><p>Sequestration is easy, good for the soil, and might be profitable, so why not do it?</p><p>A small company, <a href="http://www.purity.se/int/index.html">Purity</a>, making kettles for water heating and purification, has taken up the idea: They calculate how much carbon dioxide emissions the making of their product generate and will contract a group of farmers in Ethiopia to make and bury charcoal to improve their soils under the supervision of an independent company. After that, Purity can claim that their products are carbon negative! (Since more carbon is buried than actually is released.)</p><p>Something for the big oil companies to take after?</p><p>Or buy carbon emission permissions... from a person who actually buried the same amount of carbon as charcoal!<br /> </p>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-73369096028821606762007-10-16T00:22:00.000+02:002007-10-15T15:29:37.236+02:00What are rainforests good for?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/gaia/Globrad1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 700px; height: 250px;" src="http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/gaia/Globrad1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The above picture is a false-color picture of the OLR, Outgoing Longwave Radiation of the Earth in the early nineties, made by NOAA. You can see the contours of the continents. Blue on the map represents 'cool' radiation, while red represents 'hot' radiation. One could also say exergy-poor and exergy-rich radiation. (Never heard about exergy? Go to <a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/index.shtml">my homepage</a> and look up <a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/Distans/Ekofys/fysbas/LOT/LOT.shtml">thermodynamics</a>).<br />What is interesting with the picture is that the temperature radiation is not evenly spread over the world. It is not so, that the radiation from the poles is cool and the radiation from the equator is warm. On the opposite, form the equatorial regons, we have a rather cool radiation, at least form the areas where we have rain forests. The intensive exergy consumption done by the equatorial ecosystems actually <span style="font-weight: bold;">cools </span>the area (and that is not only by the strong evaporation in the area).<br />This is something that also happens in the small scale. Do you want to tell if a flower in a pot is a real flower or an almost perfect model, made of plastic? Hold a leaf between your fingers. The living leaf is <span style="font-style: italic;">cooler </span>than room temperature, while the plastic leaf has the same temperature as room temperature.<br />For the living ecosystems, it is the same. <a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/Ecologicaldevelopment/Termodyn_en.shtml">The more mature it is, the cooler it is.</a><br /><br />So, when we destroy the rain forest, issues of biodiversity, medicine, beauty, native population are often brought to discussion. The very important issue of global cooling is often neglected. In principle, one can say that the more mature an ecosystem is, the cooler it is, and the more counter-impact it has on global warming.<br /><br />If you can read Swedish, a <a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/gaia/gaiasnf.shtml">longer discussion on this is available</a>.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-54794139014610042262007-09-28T15:02:00.001+02:002008-12-11T00:17:12.094+01:00Why it need both to solve the problemEarlier (the 18:th and 19:th), I pointed out the inclusion of charcoal (biochar) in soil as a way to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The 24:th, I pointed out possible abrupt climate changes as a real threat if our way of conduct is not changed radically.<br />The problem is that bifurcations and similar climate changes can not be predicted in time. As with the pack of lions, you can only back away from them.<br />Up to now, our main efforts (if any) has been to reduce the effluents of carbon dioxide. This is <span style="font-style: italic;">certainly not enough</span> (like walking slower into the lion pack, or closing slower to the point of no return, when we get an abrupt climate change), but it is not in vain. Let me explain why.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOh-F-GhlPNcHgSXC_TgzF-Umr0INHbS8nR_vO1cmXcajlkpsb_CRqL6wqxbot6DQcmdQ5je_D8UoRNoELtpRwQWGxBgwPNLaaukWQQVLkMno5x9aPGX6ltUHlAZuaPFRdt1GID41Ypf1K/s1600-h/terrapreta2.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 422px; height: 377px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOh-F-GhlPNcHgSXC_TgzF-Umr0INHbS8nR_vO1cmXcajlkpsb_CRqL6wqxbot6DQcmdQ5je_D8UoRNoELtpRwQWGxBgwPNLaaukWQQVLkMno5x9aPGX6ltUHlAZuaPFRdt1GID41Ypf1K/s320/terrapreta2.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5115245169507445186" border="0" /></a>In the left pile, the currently added --and dangerous -- 475 Gt of carbon (as carbon dioxide) is successively added on with a successively diminishing amount of new carbon (very ambitious, a 90% reduction), but it is leading straight into the zone of system stress where a bifurcation is imminent.<br />In the right piles, each period (year?) of diminishing emissions is matched by a carbon sequestration of 2 Gton. This is the same as slowing down, and after some time, backing off from the zone of imminent climate flips.<br />That is why you need <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">both </span>emission decrease and sequestration.<br />N.b. that the decrease in emissions certainly is very ambitious (90%), as is the rate of carbon sequestration (2Gt/year). It is in the same size as the war efforts in GB during WW II, but globally.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But the threat is larger.</span>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-13970258862620209292007-09-25T08:47:00.000+02:002008-12-11T00:17:12.487+01:00On flipping and precaution<span style="font-size:85%;">Since the world is full of ignorant people that don't understand Swedish, I will try to stick to English.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">A very common feature of complex systems (e.g. organisms, ecosystems, the ecosphere, economic systems) is the habit of nonlinear changes. That makes their behavior extremely hard to predict. If you are inside such a system, e.g. a climate</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> system, they are easy to interpret as stable or predictable.<br />You make a complicated calculation and come to the conclusion that the temperature (or sea level, or any other characteristic of the system) will change, say, 1% within 100 years. The only thing that can be said </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">safely </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">of such a calculation is that <span style="font-style: italic;">it is wrong</span>. Complex systems don't change in that way. They flip, i.e. they suddenly change into another state that can not be calculated from the knowledge of their current parts.</span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinhETua9ZgJnisy3B_-OQEzDyWDwksGkC4VFLPTESr-2pD-heGCHFLaqAskOi4Yh0Ss3h1rwDg1kQlMLtHSBhxbiis_yztarINyQl3M3_GdiTlsfQFwODhOYfOQtKfbVZtsFNTVsfOaJ4k/s1600-h/bifurkation.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 217px; height: 120px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinhETua9ZgJnisy3B_-OQEzDyWDwksGkC4VFLPTESr-2pD-heGCHFLaqAskOi4Yh0Ss3h1rwDg1kQlMLtHSBhxbiis_yztarINyQl3M3_GdiTlsfQFwODhOYfOQtKfbVZtsFNTVsfOaJ4k/s320/bifurkation.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5114051108469615026" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Two typical ways of flipping in a complex system. The upper is a 'bifurcation', the system changes into one of two alternate stable states (e.g. a climate changing into a new heat period or a new ice age) the lower is a 'catastrophe' (e.g. a stripped ecosystem that changes into a desert). The main issue is that, after flipping, there is no way back, even if the original variables are restored.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9RtAW23D7VRHfQmQ0e7tJCBBskBeXUJ1YPZHvhvD0toy2Cp4MykRyrzDPnZHLHCm8_A9gE9lntkhEpEqKkiqRgLaQJPwzgxnSLjC334RWHCpFDHWFwS2E4vzfmPAECWYczNBLeyN0rpX5/s1600-h/ctastrofic.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 110px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9RtAW23D7VRHfQmQ0e7tJCBBskBeXUJ1YPZHvhvD0toy2Cp4MykRyrzDPnZHLHCm8_A9gE9lntkhEpEqKkiqRgLaQJPwzgxnSLjC334RWHCpFDHWFwS2E4vzfmPAECWYczNBLeyN0rpX5/s320/ctastrofic.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5114046332465981842" border="0" /></a><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span>If you live <span style="font-style: italic;">within </span>the system, before the flip, you are unable to predict the flip. You may be able to predict <span style="font-weight: bold;">that </span>a flip will come, but not <span style="font-weight: bold;">when</span>, because there are very few signs from within that the system will make an abrupt change, and how.<br />If you live in, say, the upper system, some way from the place when the system is so strained that it will bifurcate, you can not tell when the bifurcation will come, because there are no signs of it.<br /><br />The most beautiful (and recent) example of a climate bifurcation was the change into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas">Younger Dryas </a>about 12000 years ago, when the climate of the Northern hemisphere changed from a warm-moist climate into a cold-dry in a period of less than ten years. It lasted about 1300 years, delaying the start of the current interglacial period.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Possible flips</span><br />There is a multitude of possible climate flips. Most of them are interacting with each other, making the overall effect highly unpredictable. Examples are such as the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20840754-23109,00.html">calving of the Ross-ice</a>, the<a href="http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/"> loss of the Gulf stream</a>, the <a href="http://energybulletin.net/3647.html">thawing of the polar tundra, emitting methane</a>, the <a href="http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html">loss of the Arctic polar cap</a>. All of those are non-linear changes, unpredictable until they start, almost impossible to revert when they start.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Run up by the scientists</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />This blog was written in September 2007. Already in Februay 2008, it has <a style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-identify-tipping-points-of-climate-change-778027.html">become an official truth.</a></span> Read the article in Independent.<div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><span style="font-size:130%;">What can we do?</span><br />Treat climate flips as a pack of lions on the savanna; chose another path that leads away from them. Currently, the widest path that leads into a climate flip is the emission of of ghg, notably carbon dioxide. But, as in the case with the lion pack, it is senseless to go slower into the pack (equivalent of emitting <span style="font-style: italic;">less </span>carbon dioxide), you have go <span style="font-style: italic;">backwards</span>, i.e. you have to diminish the carbon dioxide cloud. I.e. reduce it by more than you emit.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ceterum censeo</span>: You have to bind carbon (in the form of charcoal) at a faster rate than you emit carbon dioxide.<br />Otherwise it is like standing there, looking at the lions, until they get hungry.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-35147431681627808862007-09-19T12:37:00.000+02:002007-09-30T11:36:35.138+02:00English translation of yesterday's post<h3><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Is it good as it is?<o:p></o:p></span></h3> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Nothing indicates that the climate situation is good as it is. Unexpected weather phenomenons, such as floodings, hurricanes, rainstorms and the like are starting to become third page news. Abrupt changes outdate the regular predictions. The <a href="http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/animation.html">Antarctic ices are calving</a>. Soon, the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20840754-23109,00.html">Ross-Ice is in turn</a>, with a sudden sea level increase of 5-<st1:metricconverter productid="17 meters" st="on">17 meters</st1:metricconverter>. The openings of the north-west and north-east passages in the <st1:place st="on">Arctic</st1:place>, applauded by the oil transporters<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html">, might be a start of the melting of the entire Arctic ice-sheet</a>, may be within a ten-year period. This, in turn, may release enough fresh water to <a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/worries/nadw/nadw.shtml">stop the Gulf stream</a>, which will make the climate of <st1:place st="on">Northern Europe</st1:place> much colder, not warmer.<br />If you have a villa in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Spain</st1:place></st1:country-region> -- don’t sell it! (But it may be good idea to insulate it.)<br /><br />All these phenomena relate to the excess of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.. And what do we do about it?<span style=""> </span>We take measures to release somewhat less carbon dioxide! (Increasing the gasoline prize, increasing the mileage of the cars, or making people believe that it is enough to change fuel.)<span style=""> </span>It is as if we're only <span style="font-style: italic;">slowing down</span> the sawing of the branch we are sitting on.<br /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">However, the decrease of the use of fossil fuels is a very good solution for another threat; the about 4% annual decrease of fossil fuels after the <a href="http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_detail.asp?ART_ID=2695">oil peak</a>. Failing to accommodate for that, the economy will collapse, because it is dependent of a continuous growth, i.e. more energy every year.<br /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:13;">Decrease the carbon, not the tax!<br /></span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">To counteract the threats of abrupt climate changes, a two-front war need to be fought. It is good to decrease the emissions, but it is not enough. Even if the emissions were decreased to 0% of the current use – a total stop of all use of fossil fuels – it would not be enough. It would not improve the climate from the current state. To ‘improve ‘ the climate, you need <i style="">both</i> a substantial emission decrease <i style="">and</i> a massive sequestration of the current carbon dioxide cloud.<br /><br /></span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:13;">The bright side – to look at</span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">It is easy to remove carbon from the atmosphere. First, you let plants growand take up carbon dioxide. Second, you prevent their giving back the carbon to the atmosphere by converting the biomass into charcoal. While biomass has a turnover time on about 150 years, the charcoal is almost inert, and had a turnover time of several millennia. The knowledge of charcoal production is a as old as the knowledge of making fire.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Furthermore, charcoal is an excellent soil improver. <a href="http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/">Terra preta</a> is a well known gift from the native Amazon Indians.<br />Apart from the Amazonian Indians, we have a further restriction. Incautious production of charcoal will emit at large amount of methane. To avoid that, either a so-called <a href="http://64.176.180.203/charcoalretort.htm">retort device</a> need to be used, or an advanced pyrolysis unit with gas filters and the like, to use the surplus gasses as raw material for a new-old chemo-technical industry. </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:13;"><br /></span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The maximum 40% of the biomass that is possible to convert into charcoal can – and should – be used as a soil improver. Since the inner surface of one gramme of charcoal is equal to the surface of three football grounds, it can give almost any soil a real kick start when it is colonized by micro-organisms, nutrient molecules and plant roots.<br /><br /></span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:13;">Fair tax<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">But you will not save the world by trusting the idealists that want to improve their soils by tilling in charcoal. You need stronger forces. Why not human greed?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Imagine for a moment – totally hypothetically, naturally – that you could introduce a <i style="">fair</i> carbon tax. Imagine that you could save the carbon dioxide emission tax out of the tax ocean and use it to <i style="">pay the people sequestering carbon</i>. Since a kilo of charcoal is equal to 3.67 kilos of carbon dioxide (because of the higher content of oxygen in carbon dioxide), somebody digging in one tonne of charcoal with the current tax of 0.90 SEK per kilo carbon dioxide, would be compensated with a sum of nearly 4000 (3667) SEK (almost €400). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">A fair harvest of Industrial hemp will give about 20 tonne dw. Converted into charcoal, this harvest would give a revenue of about 30 000 SEK (€3,200 ).<o:p></o:p></span><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB"> Wheat growing, take a running jump!<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p>I am fully aware of the possibilities for a tremendous bureaucracy and corruption associated with such a Klondike of carbon management. But wouldn’t the reward be worth it?</p>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-32603965435217712212007-09-18T11:25:00.000+02:002007-09-18T16:23:29.044+02:00Sänk kolet, inte priset!<span style=""><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Är det bra som det är?</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Det finns ingenting som tyder på att klimatsituationen är bra som den är. Oväntade väderfenomen börjar snart bli något man kan förvänta sig. <a href="http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/animation.html">Isarna i Antarktis kalvar</a>. Snart står <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20840754-23109,00.html">Ross-isen </a>på tur. Den f<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html">ör oljetransportörerna välkomna öppningen av nordost- och nordväspassagerna i Arktis kan vara en föregångare till att hela Arktis smälter</a>, kanske inom en tioårsperiod. Kanske leder det frigjorda sötvattnet till att vi b<a href="http://www.holon.se/folke/worries/nadw/nadw.shtml">lir av med Golfströmmen,</a> och då blir det kallare här, inte varmare.<br />Alla som har en villa i Spanien -- sälj den inte!<br /><br />Alla dessa fenomen kan härledas till att det finns för mycket växthusgaser i atmosfären, särskilt koldioxid. Och vad gör man mot det? Jo man släpper ut lite mindre koldioxid!<br />Det är som att såga <span style="font-style: italic;">långsammare </span>när man får reda på att grenen man sitter på är den man håller på att såga av. Om man tror att det räcker med att såga långsammare, då kan man höja bensinpriset, skapa energisnålare bilar, eller inbilla folk att det räcker med att byta bränsle.<br /><br />Att använda mindre fossila bränslen är en attdeles utmärkt lösning på ett annat hot: Att tillgången på fossila bränslen minskar med ungefär 4% per år efter oljetoppen, som inträffade förra året. Om man inte lyckas med det riskerar ekonomin att kollapsa, eftersom den är beroende av ständig tillväxt, dvs mer energi varje år.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sänk kolet!</span></span><br />Men för att motverka klimathoten krävs ytterligare åtgärder. Det är visserligen bra att minska utsläppen, men det räcker inte. Även om man minskar dem till 0% av de nuvarande (dvs <span style="font-style: italic;">fullständigt </span>upphör med <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> användning av fossila bränslen) -- så blir klimatet detsamma.<br />För att få ett 'bättre' klimat, och göra de obehagliga händelser som plötsliga klimatförändingar innebär, mindre sannolika, så måste man <span style="font-style: italic;">både </span>minska utsläppen och inleda en massiv kolsänkning.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The bright side</span></span><br />Det är lätt att att ta bort kol från atmosfären. Man låter växer ta bort det genom sin tillväxt, och sedan omvandlar man växtbiomassan till träkol. Träkolet använder man som jordförbätringsmedel. Det är kemiskt neutral och kan mycket väl ligga kvar där i tiotusen år eller mer. Kolning är känt sedan urminnestider och kan genomföras med mycket enkla metoder.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">I vårt fall gäller det emellertid att inte släppa ut fler växthusgaser (tex metan) vid kolningen än man tar bort i form av koldioxid. Det klarar man genom att använda metanet som bränsletillskott vid kolningen (sk retort-kolning), eller genom att kola mer mer industriellt avancerade metoder, då man kaan använda metan, vätgas och allehanda andra läckerheter som utgångspunk för en "ny" kemisk-teknisk industri.<br />De maximala 40% av biomassan som blir kol kan --och bör -- man använda till jordförbättringsmedel. Eftersom ett gram träkol har en inre yta som är ungefär lika stor som tre fotbollsplaner ger de nästan vilken jord som helst en rejäl nystart.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rättvis skatt<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Men man räddar inte jorden från klimathoten genom att hoppas på de idealister som vill ha en bättre odlingsjord. Bättre metoder behövs. Varför inte hoppas på den mänskliga girigheten? Tänk för ett ögonblick -- rent hypoteiskt -- att man skull införa en <span style="font-style: italic;">rättvis </span>koldioxidskatt. Anta att man kunde fiska upp koldioxidskatten ur skattehavet och ge<span style="font-style: italic;"> lika mycket till någon som tar bort koldioxid </span>från atmosfären s<span style="font-style: italic;">om den måste betala som släpper ut koldioxid. </span>Eftersom ett kilo kol motsvarar 3,67 kilo koldioxid (eftersom koldioxiden inehåller mer syre, som är tungt), skulle någon som gräver ned ett ton kol med nuvarande skattesats på 90 öre kilot per kilo koldioxid, bli berättigad till en ersättning på närmare 4000 kronor (3667). En hyfsad odling av industrihampamed en skörd på 20 ton torrsubstans per hektar, skulle ge en intäkt på närmare 30 000 kr/ha! <span style="font-weight: bold;">Veteodling, släng dig i väggen.</span><br /><br />Jag är medveten om den ofantliga mängd byråkrati och korruptionsmöjligheter man öppnar för. Men skulle det inte vara värt det?<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-61021655981573674412007-09-10T14:02:00.000+02:002007-09-10T14:20:26.491+02:00New startThe idea of having a blog for quick responses came to me from my wife Jane, who is the net-nestor of the family.<br />So, now I am starting one, for the service of my readers and to add thoughts about recent occurrences in the world.<br />And also, to discuss reflections and speculations that might interest more than myself.<br /><br />One of the first forfeitures created by the possession of this blog seems to be the loss of the two dots above the U of my surname, but I think I'll have to live with that.Folkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.com0