@GlobalEcoGuy Increasing land carbon sink for offset projects –
this doesn't work. Net-zero with🌳is a logical fallacy ppl believe in.
General mechanics of carbon sinks AND under AGW stress can't compensate continued emissions.
A TRUE-zero world has to increase carbon sink annually to stay 0
@GlobalEcoGuy German forests reduced sink capacity by 86% since 1990 and 🇩🇪biosphere was already a net CO2 source from 2016-2020. At 1.1C.

* at local 24C/34C, respiration/photosynthesis balance in C3 / C4 plants is a net CO2 source
* stress from🪲🔥💧=CO2e source
* ++˚C =ocean store less CO2
@GlobalEcoGuy The 3 * above show: land&ocean carbon sinks are more and more reduced under AGW stress.
Now to the general mechanics. Positive emissions in a "net-zero" world will still add to the atmosphere each year. As shown above, more so under progressing AGW stress.
++ CO2ppm = ++˚C
@GlobalEcoGuy Biosphere slowly adopts to the new regional climate regime. In doing so, it emits CO2e. Whether it dies from pests bc bug larvae don't die in warmer winters, from drought or from fires, it emits CO2e.

And by now, it's fossil CO2. CO2 which doesn't belong in the current cycle.
@GlobalEcoGuy The plants now alive have stored those x% of human caused emissions. That's what they grew their plant matter from. This fossil CO2 didn't show in ppm readings, so far.
But when the plants die from AGW stress, their stored fossil CO2 ends up in the atmo.
All of a sudden. 💣
@GlobalEcoGuy One might say, CO2 from dying plants is only temporarily added to the atmo, and other plants which so far didn't die from AGW stress take it up, as do oceans.

But only x% of added fossil CO2 from dying plants is taken up, y% do stay in atmo.
And while x decreases, y increases!
@GlobalEcoGuy So, as we progress into changed climate regimes, land & oceans take up less and less, and the fossil CO2 emissions currently stored in plants eventually are released and will raise CO2ppm.

Hence, a true-zero world has to measure that rise and increase NET annually to stay at 0.
@GlobalEcoGuy As long as fossil CO2e emissions continue, including methane from oil and gas industry, which they do in a net-zero world, plant-stored fossil CO2 is increased and eventually ends up in the atmo, anyway. Where it doesn't belong. And where smaller land&ocean sinks won't reduce it.
@GlobalEcoGuy Already under 1.1˚C,🌳are more often a net source bc local ˚C exceeds 24/34˚C (sources below), and bc AGW stress lets them die. If we stop emissions today at 1.1˚C, newly planted trees only buffer fossil CO2 in the air, and with a biosphere uptake capacity already reduced by 20%.
@GlobalEcoGuy That's my take of the general mechanics under AGW stress.
Well managed BECCS can help. But not as tool to meet basic energy demand. That wd stress biocapacity even further. BECCS can only be used to reduce fossil CO2 from the carbon cycle. And only once the world is at true-zero
@GlobalEcoGuy These are the sources I drew from. Both are real-data studies, not model fantasies.

AGW stress 💧🪲🔥of 1.1˚C reduced CO2 sinks: nature.com/articles/s4146…
Photosynthesis/CO2 respiration in C3/C4 plants already reduced sinks by 20% due to rising local ˚C: advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/ea….
@GlobalEcoGuy German source for German biosphere being a net CO2 source 2016-2020 and loss of forests's carbon sink capacity by 86% since 1990: klimareporter.de/images/dokumen…
or klimareporter.de/erdsystem/auf-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with anlomedad

anlomedad Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @anlomedad

28 Feb
Wenn CDU-ler gegen Linke Politik wettern, reicht ja der Hashtag #DDR schon und alle kriegen passende Assoziationen. Ich will, dass die Traditionslinie der CDU, ihrer Mitglieder +ihrer Arbeitsweise, selbstverständliches Wissen wird. Es lässt sich bloß nicht in 1 Satz ausdrücken🧵
Guck ich mir CDU an
*die in Hinterzimmermentalität Firmenbossen Einfluss gewährt
*mit Typen wie HGM, Merz, WerteUnion, Bähner, Caffier, Bouffier Fritsche usw,
seh ich 1 Traditions-Linie mit nach 1945, als Nazi-Profiteure Ansprechpartner suchten und sie in der neuen CDU fanden!
Fällt mir grad so auf, als ich zum Linken-Parteitag rumlese und mich dran erinnere, wie immer wieder das angeblich noch spürbare SED-Erbe als Abschreckung hervorgekramt wird.

In CDU lebt das Nazi-Erbe und Industrie-Netzwerkeln/Lobbykratie. Und zwar erfolgreich als Exekutive!
Read 5 tweets
28 Feb
Traurig, dass @Die_Gruenen nicht #TellTheTruth tun. Dass sie im Ernst glauben, sie könnten nach #btw21 AUSREICHEND viele Schrittchen durchsetzen im WeiterSo...NIX wird reichen nach btw21!
NOCH nicht. Darum ist Glaubwürdigkeit wichtiger.
Hofreiters #einfamilienhaus war richtig!
Am #einfamilienhaus hängt lokaler Flächenfraß, Energie- Mobilitäts- und Rohstoffverbrauch. Das treibt das Massensterben u kostet carbon sinks global.
Das gehört in die öff. Debatte. Aber da ist es nicht. #einfamilienhaus ist der perfekte Aufhänger.
Nu hat #Habeck abgewiegelt und Hofreiter gemaßregelt. Wie wirkt sich das aus? Die Gesellschaft ist wieder einen Schritt rückwärts gegangen in climate awareness. Es kostet also Zeit, bis Zus-Hänge kapiert+akzeptiert werden. Wenn das soweit ist,
ist Grüne Glaubwürdigkeit futsch.
Read 17 tweets
28 Feb
Solutionism is part of human psyche, I think. Seeing 1 problem, 1 solution - and go for it. Omitting all other factors and potentially worsening the situation, eg by replacing car fleet with EV!

But being a pack animal also is to wait until authorities present solutions.
And that's frankly what I don't get from the climate activist movement. Shouldn't we publicly stand for a 1.5˚-plan, like the one German FFF got from Wupper Institute? Or the one BoellStiftung did? Or GermanZero? Or mine, a 10yr non-profit System Hiatus on rations for all?
But we don't. What would happen if we did?

If we were publicly promoting one of those 1.5˚ plans, public debate wd become more and more aware of what's actually necessary - in contrast to what journalists, politicians, companies say and do.
Read 15 tweets
27 Feb
#EnergyCharterTreaty Dass Nuclear bisher noch darunter fällt, liegt daran, dass die @iaeaorg Verstrahlungstode u -Spätfolgen von Tschernobyl 1986 schlicht verleugnet. So ist den Schattenrichtern der WTO halt (offiziell) nicht klar, dass Nuklear sozial- und umweltUNverträglich ist
Nur 1 Bsp. aus dem #EnergyCharterTreaty "Sicherheit in einer Art und Weise zu erhöhen, die sozialverträglich, wirtschaftlich tragfähig u umweltverträglich ist." Da kriegt RWE doch sofort die Kasperklatsche vom WTO-Schattengericht💁‍♀️
Kapier echt die Welle nicht. Wir brauchen #ECT!
Read 5 tweets
27 Feb
@robjlinds @Peters_Glen Did you actually think that thru?
IMO, it's a false hope that plants might decrease CO2 ppm if we only reach true-0. At true-zero, AND under the˚C stress level then, carbon sinks decline further. Like they do today, at merely 1.2C. New sinks🌳will do, too!
@robjlinds @Peters_Glen Look at #AUSfires 2020, emitted 800Mt, IIRC? That was at only 1.2C. The forest grows back slowly, takes up CO2 again, or becomes grassland. True. But for now, it's gone, CO2 ppm has increased, sink decreased – and our˚C goes up.
Much forest land eventually burns or dies in ++˚C!
@robjlinds @Peters_Glen As forests die, as more and more will in ++˚C, decomposing emits CO2e, too. Up goes ppm and up goes˚C from that, if only by a little.

New 🌳do have a short-time advantage in heat/water stress bc roots are shorter than old trees'. But: shallow roots =more 🌳die in storms =++CO2e
Read 14 tweets
25 Feb
Studying the 1.5˚climate plan for Germany by NGO @_GermanZero written by experts in all relevant fields, incl. hard-sci (Mojib Latif) assets.website-files.com/5e663c02af4002… Stumbling over 20% rest emissions, and general compensation logic.

I'll assume, global 20% rest emissions = 8Gt/year
Here's the German version of GermanZero's climate plan assets.website-files.com/5e663c02af4002…
I might do another thread on the plan itself. But now, I'm interested in the other thing: the rest emissions from hard to decarbonize sectors and how natural compensation mechanics work for *net* zero.
I have issues getting the logic of continuously sequestering these 8Gt/a CO2 emissions. I myself calculated with a similar number before but never bothered to really think it through.

I know: flux into terrestrial carbon sinks under current 38Gt/a CO2 is different than for 8Gt.
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!