I am not instinctively in favor of aerosol SAI solutions. As a farmer, I worry that, to have enough effect (to keep the planet cool) these aerosols would reduce sunlight on our crops sufficiently to lower their yields. I would certainly like to know more about this potential downside. However, having read the paper in your link, I can see that there is a strong case for looking at SAI seriously. Sulphur, in the right quantities is a minor nutrient and so, when those Sulphur particles return to earth in rain, although it might be acidic, it could also be at a level that is a benefit to agriculture and indeed all natural vegetation. I would like to see research into what other essential nutrients could be used as aerosols, widening the benefits and hopefully reducing the acidifying effect of a Sulphur only approach.
Bruce, I applaud your skepticism. There are lots of opportunity for unforeseen consequences. I suspect in the end the carbon footprint of all this pumping and flying and spraying will negate whatever amelioration is hoped for. Part of my point in sharing this is to demonstrate how dire our situation is even though the "person on the street" thinks we have decades if not centuries to "solve" these problems. If we can't stop putting CO2 in the air then why would we think we should just work on extracting it or blocking the resultant solar energy imbalance (now more than the heat of over 400000 Hiroshima bombs per day according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-equivalent-to-five-atomic-bombs-per-second-or-two-hurricane-sandys/ ). I think it is clear that desperate nations will do what they think they need to do without asking anyone. The paper suggests a more orderly way to research possible effective strategies and how to implement them internationally in an equitable way.
Thanks Peace, Could you, or anyone else put 400000 Hiroshima bombs into "normal" units: kJ, MJ, GJ, TJs? Then I could do the back of the envelope calculation that I set Anastassia - how many trees would it take?
"On the other hand, the use of Hiros has one major upside. Earth and especially its oceans have been accumulating such a vast amount of heat due to human-caused global warming that it’s difficult to comprehend. Most people have little if any sense what 10 zettajoules per year—the amount of heat energy absorbed per year by the Earth—means. That’s why climate communicators have searched for a metric of comparison that the public can grasp. It’s relatively easy to visualize five atomic bombs detonating every second, and consequently comprehend the vast amount of energy being absorbed by the Earth’s climate system."
A zeta is one followed by 21 zeros.
Perhaps you can use a free AI to convert to your favorite units. I've also seen Jim Hansen refer to the Earth's solar energy imbalance as a Watts/ meter squared but then you have to try to impress people how big the Earth is in square meters.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 10 Zeta joules of extra heat per year
27,378,507,871,321,000,000 Joules/day
2,256,000 joules/litre Latent heat of evaporation of water
12,135,863,418,139 litres/day
80 litres/tree/day (assumed)
151,698,292,727 Trees
303,396,585,453 Double that because trees only work at this level during their summer
148,940,000 km2 land mass
14,894,000 10% available to increase tree cover
1,489,400,000 ha of land available to restore trees (largely mixed agriculture)
204 trees/ha
Lots of assumptions to challenge here. 204 trees/ha is plantation level and (under my conditions) each tree probably would not be able to access 80litres/day at the end of our dry season. There are also other cooling effects of the Biotic Pump (increased cloud cover has a higher albedo) but the above does at least give an idea of the scale of the challenge
But it seems that we are losing a lot of forests around the world (higher temps, droughts, etc). The biggest assumption it seems to me is that we will be able to expand forests by planting on a massive scale, perhaps transporting water during the early growth, all with a huge carbon footprint all its own. Desertification seems to be the way Nature is choosing to go. Thoughts?
The same might be said of feldspar only it's reaction and physical property change may be an issue with the other critical material for farmers, that being water.
The most disappointing book (that I have read) of the last few years was Geoengineering by a series of authors. It was very heavy on Biochar (q.v. above) and Rock Dusts. I think (if my aged memory is correct) it was more Olivine than Feldspar, in which they claimed that Olivine rock-dust could react with CO2 and so draw it out of the atmosphere. The trouble is, the product of this reaction was CaCO3 and MgCO3, both of which, when exposed to the mild acidic conditions of most soils would react to release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. He also advocated rock dusts as a source of soil nutrients (together with Basalt). I cannot remember whether Feldspar was advocated for CO2 capture or for nutrients (or both) but my objection to rock dusts as a source of nutrients is that animal and plant nutrition is all about balance. A rock dust might be useful as a way of topping up 5 or 6 different nutrients, but it is almost certain that that soil/rock dust combination is going to need some further tweaking to get the levels in roughly the right ratios. Thankfully Biology is flexible so we do not have to get the balance exact (which is different for different crops anyway) but we HAVE to remember that Agriculture is an Extractive Industry (we send nutrients to the cities and they don't send them back - or, when they do, they generally send them back contaminated with all sorts of other pollutants). There is probably a place for rock dusts, but they won't be sufficient to make a significant impact on the CO2 problem and I would hate it to allow policy makers to think that deforestation is not therefore an issue.
The thing is, and I’m sure you’re well aware, this geoengineering is always “bandaid” solutions. It’s never going to the heart of the problem. It just prolongs us a little bit more. We know what needs to be done but empire wants to keep the status quo as long as it can. I know that’s not a good response but I think it’s time people started abandoning the system as much as possible and get their community building going as much as they can
Absolutely right on, Leon! That's why I see geoengineering as Cargoism as defined in the landmark book Overshoot by William R. Catton Jr. The evidence is overwhelming that we will never voluntarily stop extracting hydrocarbon and the longer the civilization continues the more the natural world is degraded. That's why I'm a Doomster, the preferred term of Jem Bendell (author of Breaking Together).
Yeah that Jem Bendell is I'm sure responsible for a lot of people rethinking their lives. Me too, but I find I can't think too much in that way, not good for the mental health. That's why I occupy myself with our little wilding project here. Helping to create and protect as much life as I can. Pointless? maybe, but everyday I get awed. Life is incredible, beautiful.
It is not pointless at all. You are seeding the future (if it is to come). I've just seen this short video from Nate Hagens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrGsRAv2MrY about cultural mitochondria and found it quite encouraging
Another great post, which I have not finished trying to absorb. I have made contact with the BPGG but I did not see a button that allowed me to sign up for updates and newsletters. I have suggested to them that they create such a mailing list.
I actually read the link shared by Peace2051 advocating for SAI which I did find compelling. I wonder whether you (Anastassia, or other workers in the Biotic Pump field) could give us an estimate of how many large mature rain trees we would have to restore (ideally on a country by country basis!!!!) to have enough of a cooling effect to bring the temperature back down by 1 deg C? Restoring trees is a 50 year project, but maybe SAI could buy us that 50year opportunity?
Bruce - in the tropics I've got huge raintree trees maturing in size after about 6 years! (I have to keep hard pruning (severely cutting them back) in order to give natives growing in their understory a chance to take off.
Thanks Leon. Where exactly are you? I am in Choma, in the southern province of Zambia (15 deg S, average rainfall about 600mm/year). I could grow a eucalypt or possibly one of our indigenous species to "rainfall" size in 20 years, but the average, especially of our "wise" (Anastassia's term - trees that have evolved to time their peak transpiration with the onset of the rains) indigenous trees would definitely be 50 years. I am hoping we can shorten that considerably by growing trees from stumps of recently felled trees using FMNR, see www.radio4pasa.com/bring-back-the-rains
I'd never heard of FMNR before you mentioning it, am just downloading a manual now.
I'm in the Philippines, completely different context/rainfall, but it's always interesting learning about other methods. I started with an entire property of cogon grass, some coconuts and some dying citrus just over 6 years ago. I use hand tools; a scythe, handsaws, everything is slow (my mistakes are slower, and everything I do is pondered upon for a good amount of time, haha). I'm increasing biodiversity and biomass. Lots of animals returning. Great insect life (not really that great but considering they're dangerously in decline I'm seeing decent amounts), brilliant bird-life, lots of frogs. The scythe helps me selectively protect any natives I see popping up (thanks to the birds). The non-natives I hard prune now during the rainy season (but it's weird rainy season as usual these days) to let in lots of light. The timber I leave lots lying around (logs hold 21 times as much moisture as soil I've read) and use also for making biochar, garden bed borders. Got a cow and two sheep to help me move nutrients around. We get bad typhoons most years, I'm going to be planting forever to replace everything that gets knocked down each year. Thanks for the link!
Great Leon to have that feedback on your system. I am working towards using scythes (as much to make hay but also for control of selected plants). I am NOT a fan of Biochar. I run a thought experiment: Your plot yields say 20t of "waste" biomass per year, from which you remove 5t as being suitable for domestic cooking/heating. Of the remainder, 7.5t you turn into biochar and put on say a 20x20m vegetable garden. The other 7.5 you turn into compost or use as mulch on another 20x20m patch of vegetables. I believe the composted patch will always out yield the biochar, and this difference will probably increase with time.
Wait, so that’s not the way I use biochar... My charcoal (not yet “charged” so not “bio”char), I add initially to my compost making cycle. It NEEDS to be added at the start of the composting, as I’m doing the layering of greens, browns and cow/human poop. I never just add it to a bed, it’s part of my compost.
Now the reason I started doing biochar was because of our coconut harvesting. Had a huge amount of leftover husks and even after mulching a whole bunch of things (great for vanilla vines) I still had so much in a pile. So turning them into charcoal was a great use for them. Then crush a bit and add to the new compost piles.
Is your apprehension to biochar because it’s possibly being inappropriately used? If charcoal is just added to a bed it will spend the next year or so sucking up all the nutrients and your plants will go without!!
OK, Biochar from coconut fiber (or walnut shells etc.) may have a role to play, providing you do not need those as an energy source. My concern is that a lot of people are turning compostable material into Biochar, which is a mistake. This denies most of the nutrients and energy in that biomass from being available to the next crops.
A reader asked two questions, which I respond to here.
1. How do you recommend I best engage with, learn and absorb the main summary points of your work on biotic regulation? Do you maintain a current summary document?
2. Are you familiar with the syntropic agricultural framework developed by Ernst Gotsch in Brazil? And would you say that his observations of landscape rehydration using succession management of plant guilds affirms your research?
For a more recent overview, see Makarieva A.M. (2022) Natural Ecosystems and Earth’s Habitability: Attempting a Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis. https://bioticregulation.ru/ab.php?id=wild
2. Two of our team members, Dayana Andrade and Felipe Pasini, used to work with Ernest Gotsch and did a lot to disseminate knowledge about his important work (as "Agenda Gotsch"), see, e.g., Dayana's profile on linktr.eehttps://linktr.ee/dayana.andrade
Unfortunately besides anecdotal evidence that the water cycle has greatly improved upon forest recovery (as it should be in that region), there have been no measurements to record (and publish) that fact. Unfortunately the situation is similar with many other projects, where no attention is paid to properly monitor quantitative changes in the water cycle. This is understandable because people are having a hard time reviving the ecosystem and may not have resources to spare. But ultimately we don't have this information, which is a great pity.
I used Syntropic principles to kick start our "system". When we were starting, so many times I was thinking "we should be doing soil tests, biodiversity checks, etc etc" but "we were so busy" and just a tiny project. Like you say, people lack the resources to do these sorts of things.
I'd like to see more syntropic used to kick start "wild" systems, not just for human agriculture. I believe it's a great way to start (but a lot of human management needed but since we're soon going to be all out of work due to AI then ... haha)
"When implementing large-scale ecorestoration projects, it is essential to understand potential changes in runoff. "
That is only examining regional impacts. Some projects may in reality cause reductions in water supplies elsewhere precipitating geopolitical conflicts. One I am looking at could precipitate a global conflict.
This is interesting and a good point. On a small scale, I know my Mum and Dad’s farm dam failed to get much inflow for over fifteen years because of a eucalyptus monoculture planted uphill. Once the time er was harvested, the dam would always be full.
Are we ready to discuss geo-engineering to preserve those forests? David Spratt of Australia thinks it is time to discuss and experiment with it because our predicament is more dire than most people realize: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/_files/ugd/148cb0_fb8d67e54f914f429dc989ac968327b9.pdf
It's sad to think that we are already here, but the fact remains, both with forests and the climate, we've been here for some years already. https://www.theclimaterestorers.com/channel and https://www.theclimaterestorers.com
I am not instinctively in favor of aerosol SAI solutions. As a farmer, I worry that, to have enough effect (to keep the planet cool) these aerosols would reduce sunlight on our crops sufficiently to lower their yields. I would certainly like to know more about this potential downside. However, having read the paper in your link, I can see that there is a strong case for looking at SAI seriously. Sulphur, in the right quantities is a minor nutrient and so, when those Sulphur particles return to earth in rain, although it might be acidic, it could also be at a level that is a benefit to agriculture and indeed all natural vegetation. I would like to see research into what other essential nutrients could be used as aerosols, widening the benefits and hopefully reducing the acidifying effect of a Sulphur only approach.
Bruce, I applaud your skepticism. There are lots of opportunity for unforeseen consequences. I suspect in the end the carbon footprint of all this pumping and flying and spraying will negate whatever amelioration is hoped for. Part of my point in sharing this is to demonstrate how dire our situation is even though the "person on the street" thinks we have decades if not centuries to "solve" these problems. If we can't stop putting CO2 in the air then why would we think we should just work on extracting it or blocking the resultant solar energy imbalance (now more than the heat of over 400000 Hiroshima bombs per day according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-equivalent-to-five-atomic-bombs-per-second-or-two-hurricane-sandys/ ). I think it is clear that desperate nations will do what they think they need to do without asking anyone. The paper suggests a more orderly way to research possible effective strategies and how to implement them internationally in an equitable way.
Thanks Peace, Could you, or anyone else put 400000 Hiroshima bombs into "normal" units: kJ, MJ, GJ, TJs? Then I could do the back of the envelope calculation that I set Anastassia - how many trees would it take?
The article I linked has this paragraph:
"On the other hand, the use of Hiros has one major upside. Earth and especially its oceans have been accumulating such a vast amount of heat due to human-caused global warming that it’s difficult to comprehend. Most people have little if any sense what 10 zettajoules per year—the amount of heat energy absorbed per year by the Earth—means. That’s why climate communicators have searched for a metric of comparison that the public can grasp. It’s relatively easy to visualize five atomic bombs detonating every second, and consequently comprehend the vast amount of energy being absorbed by the Earth’s climate system."
A zeta is one followed by 21 zeros.
Perhaps you can use a free AI to convert to your favorite units. I've also seen Jim Hansen refer to the Earth's solar energy imbalance as a Watts/ meter squared but then you have to try to impress people how big the Earth is in square meters.
21 Zeta Joules is perfect - my kinda language ;-)
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 10 Zeta joules of extra heat per year
27,378,507,871,321,000,000 Joules/day
2,256,000 joules/litre Latent heat of evaporation of water
12,135,863,418,139 litres/day
80 litres/tree/day (assumed)
151,698,292,727 Trees
303,396,585,453 Double that because trees only work at this level during their summer
148,940,000 km2 land mass
14,894,000 10% available to increase tree cover
1,489,400,000 ha of land available to restore trees (largely mixed agriculture)
204 trees/ha
Lots of assumptions to challenge here. 204 trees/ha is plantation level and (under my conditions) each tree probably would not be able to access 80litres/day at the end of our dry season. There are also other cooling effects of the Biotic Pump (increased cloud cover has a higher albedo) but the above does at least give an idea of the scale of the challenge
But it seems that we are losing a lot of forests around the world (higher temps, droughts, etc). The biggest assumption it seems to me is that we will be able to expand forests by planting on a massive scale, perhaps transporting water during the early growth, all with a huge carbon footprint all its own. Desertification seems to be the way Nature is choosing to go. Thoughts?
The same might be said of feldspar only it's reaction and physical property change may be an issue with the other critical material for farmers, that being water.
The most disappointing book (that I have read) of the last few years was Geoengineering by a series of authors. It was very heavy on Biochar (q.v. above) and Rock Dusts. I think (if my aged memory is correct) it was more Olivine than Feldspar, in which they claimed that Olivine rock-dust could react with CO2 and so draw it out of the atmosphere. The trouble is, the product of this reaction was CaCO3 and MgCO3, both of which, when exposed to the mild acidic conditions of most soils would react to release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. He also advocated rock dusts as a source of soil nutrients (together with Basalt). I cannot remember whether Feldspar was advocated for CO2 capture or for nutrients (or both) but my objection to rock dusts as a source of nutrients is that animal and plant nutrition is all about balance. A rock dust might be useful as a way of topping up 5 or 6 different nutrients, but it is almost certain that that soil/rock dust combination is going to need some further tweaking to get the levels in roughly the right ratios. Thankfully Biology is flexible so we do not have to get the balance exact (which is different for different crops anyway) but we HAVE to remember that Agriculture is an Extractive Industry (we send nutrients to the cities and they don't send them back - or, when they do, they generally send them back contaminated with all sorts of other pollutants). There is probably a place for rock dusts, but they won't be sufficient to make a significant impact on the CO2 problem and I would hate it to allow policy makers to think that deforestation is not therefore an issue.
The thing is, and I’m sure you’re well aware, this geoengineering is always “bandaid” solutions. It’s never going to the heart of the problem. It just prolongs us a little bit more. We know what needs to be done but empire wants to keep the status quo as long as it can. I know that’s not a good response but I think it’s time people started abandoning the system as much as possible and get their community building going as much as they can
Absolutely right on, Leon! That's why I see geoengineering as Cargoism as defined in the landmark book Overshoot by William R. Catton Jr. The evidence is overwhelming that we will never voluntarily stop extracting hydrocarbon and the longer the civilization continues the more the natural world is degraded. That's why I'm a Doomster, the preferred term of Jem Bendell (author of Breaking Together).
Yeah that Jem Bendell is I'm sure responsible for a lot of people rethinking their lives. Me too, but I find I can't think too much in that way, not good for the mental health. That's why I occupy myself with our little wilding project here. Helping to create and protect as much life as I can. Pointless? maybe, but everyday I get awed. Life is incredible, beautiful.
It is not pointless at all. You are seeding the future (if it is to come). I've just seen this short video from Nate Hagens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrGsRAv2MrY about cultural mitochondria and found it quite encouraging
Thank you Anastassia, this was helpful way of seeing things, I’ll keep these in mind next time I get despondent! Nate’s doing a brilliant job.
Thank You again, Anastassia, for explaining this clearly for people.
Another great post, which I have not finished trying to absorb. I have made contact with the BPGG but I did not see a button that allowed me to sign up for updates and newsletters. I have suggested to them that they create such a mailing list.
I actually read the link shared by Peace2051 advocating for SAI which I did find compelling. I wonder whether you (Anastassia, or other workers in the Biotic Pump field) could give us an estimate of how many large mature rain trees we would have to restore (ideally on a country by country basis!!!!) to have enough of a cooling effect to bring the temperature back down by 1 deg C? Restoring trees is a 50 year project, but maybe SAI could buy us that 50year opportunity?
Bruce - in the tropics I've got huge raintree trees maturing in size after about 6 years! (I have to keep hard pruning (severely cutting them back) in order to give natives growing in their understory a chance to take off.
Thanks Leon. Where exactly are you? I am in Choma, in the southern province of Zambia (15 deg S, average rainfall about 600mm/year). I could grow a eucalypt or possibly one of our indigenous species to "rainfall" size in 20 years, but the average, especially of our "wise" (Anastassia's term - trees that have evolved to time their peak transpiration with the onset of the rains) indigenous trees would definitely be 50 years. I am hoping we can shorten that considerably by growing trees from stumps of recently felled trees using FMNR, see www.radio4pasa.com/bring-back-the-rains
I'd never heard of FMNR before you mentioning it, am just downloading a manual now.
I'm in the Philippines, completely different context/rainfall, but it's always interesting learning about other methods. I started with an entire property of cogon grass, some coconuts and some dying citrus just over 6 years ago. I use hand tools; a scythe, handsaws, everything is slow (my mistakes are slower, and everything I do is pondered upon for a good amount of time, haha). I'm increasing biodiversity and biomass. Lots of animals returning. Great insect life (not really that great but considering they're dangerously in decline I'm seeing decent amounts), brilliant bird-life, lots of frogs. The scythe helps me selectively protect any natives I see popping up (thanks to the birds). The non-natives I hard prune now during the rainy season (but it's weird rainy season as usual these days) to let in lots of light. The timber I leave lots lying around (logs hold 21 times as much moisture as soil I've read) and use also for making biochar, garden bed borders. Got a cow and two sheep to help me move nutrients around. We get bad typhoons most years, I'm going to be planting forever to replace everything that gets knocked down each year. Thanks for the link!
Great Leon to have that feedback on your system. I am working towards using scythes (as much to make hay but also for control of selected plants). I am NOT a fan of Biochar. I run a thought experiment: Your plot yields say 20t of "waste" biomass per year, from which you remove 5t as being suitable for domestic cooking/heating. Of the remainder, 7.5t you turn into biochar and put on say a 20x20m vegetable garden. The other 7.5 you turn into compost or use as mulch on another 20x20m patch of vegetables. I believe the composted patch will always out yield the biochar, and this difference will probably increase with time.
Wait, so that’s not the way I use biochar... My charcoal (not yet “charged” so not “bio”char), I add initially to my compost making cycle. It NEEDS to be added at the start of the composting, as I’m doing the layering of greens, browns and cow/human poop. I never just add it to a bed, it’s part of my compost.
Now the reason I started doing biochar was because of our coconut harvesting. Had a huge amount of leftover husks and even after mulching a whole bunch of things (great for vanilla vines) I still had so much in a pile. So turning them into charcoal was a great use for them. Then crush a bit and add to the new compost piles.
Is your apprehension to biochar because it’s possibly being inappropriately used? If charcoal is just added to a bed it will spend the next year or so sucking up all the nutrients and your plants will go without!!
OK, Biochar from coconut fiber (or walnut shells etc.) may have a role to play, providing you do not need those as an energy source. My concern is that a lot of people are turning compostable material into Biochar, which is a mistake. This denies most of the nutrients and energy in that biomass from being available to the next crops.
A reader asked two questions, which I respond to here.
1. How do you recommend I best engage with, learn and absorb the main summary points of your work on biotic regulation? Do you maintain a current summary document?
2. Are you familiar with the syntropic agricultural framework developed by Ernst Gotsch in Brazil? And would you say that his observations of landscape rehydration using succession management of plant guilds affirms your research?
1. You can read about biotic regulation more fully at https://bioticregulation.ru , see especially the books section https://bioticregulation.ru/pubs/pubs5.php
For a more recent overview, see Makarieva A.M. (2022) Natural Ecosystems and Earth’s Habitability: Attempting a Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis. https://bioticregulation.ru/ab.php?id=wild
2. Two of our team members, Dayana Andrade and Felipe Pasini, used to work with Ernest Gotsch and did a lot to disseminate knowledge about his important work (as "Agenda Gotsch"), see, e.g., Dayana's profile on linktr.ee https://linktr.ee/dayana.andrade
Unfortunately besides anecdotal evidence that the water cycle has greatly improved upon forest recovery (as it should be in that region), there have been no measurements to record (and publish) that fact. Unfortunately the situation is similar with many other projects, where no attention is paid to properly monitor quantitative changes in the water cycle. This is understandable because people are having a hard time reviving the ecosystem and may not have resources to spare. But ultimately we don't have this information, which is a great pity.
I used Syntropic principles to kick start our "system". When we were starting, so many times I was thinking "we should be doing soil tests, biodiversity checks, etc etc" but "we were so busy" and just a tiny project. Like you say, people lack the resources to do these sorts of things.
I'd like to see more syntropic used to kick start "wild" systems, not just for human agriculture. I believe it's a great way to start (but a lot of human management needed but since we're soon going to be all out of work due to AI then ... haha)
https://research.fs.usda.gov/srs/forestsandranges/locations/coweeta
Might find like minded inquiring forest researchers here.
"When implementing large-scale ecorestoration projects, it is essential to understand potential changes in runoff. "
That is only examining regional impacts. Some projects may in reality cause reductions in water supplies elsewhere precipitating geopolitical conflicts. One I am looking at could precipitate a global conflict.
This is interesting and a good point. On a small scale, I know my Mum and Dad’s farm dam failed to get much inflow for over fifteen years because of a eucalyptus monoculture planted uphill. Once the time er was harvested, the dam would always be full.
That's the whole point of this post.