sown on stony ground is a space for me to explore biogeoengineering and the use of modelling to evaluate its climate change mitigation potential. Desert greening – past, present and future – is the principal theme, although it touches on wider issues in afforestation, land management and the carbon market.
The premise is simple. A back of the envelope calculation (page 2) finds that, combined, the world's deserts receive something on the order of 60 million terrawatt hours solar radiation per year — nearly 600 times the global energy consumption in 2012 (104426 TWh). If even a small fraction of this free and renewable source of energy could be harnessed by solar panels spread over the vast Saharan expanse, it could provide an important supply of power to Africa, Europe and the Middle East which doesn't contribute to global warming. This is what the renewable energy consortium Desertec are looking to achieve.
"Hey trees, stop hogging all the good sunlight"
Obviously there may be some technological issues in such a plan. To start with, as you might have noticed, the sun tends to hide at night. Temporal variability of power generation is one of the traditional issues with solar energy, and it's something I've personally experienced. At the EURENSSA conference I participated in this summer (I did say I'd bring this up again), it took a while for the solar geyser to get going, so I was shocked by the cold water the first time I went for a crack-of-dawn shower. However, advancements in thermal storage – in effect storing this energy by heating molten salt – provide a way for this power to be supplied as demand dictates.
The radio broadcast provides interesting discussion of the geopolitical implications of European companies buying African land in order to generate energy which will largely go back north. Similarly, the social and economic aspects of solar energy as a renewable resource are well covered. However, there is one thing that I'm left wondering, from a modelling perspective. The image below is taken from an EMIC experiment I carried out which simulated the plantation of forests in the Sahel region. It shows that the effects of this on global climate would be very drastic — the changes in pressure at mid/high latitudes are of a greater magnitude than the largest pressure drops recorded in hurricanes. By lowering the albedo of the Sahel's grid cells (to simulate the land's change from savannah to forest), the area became a stronger source of both latent and sensible heat, resulting in a cascade of changes to the atmospheric circulation system.
The pressure anomaly between a control simulation and a green Sahel experiment
It should be noted that the limited complexity of the atmosphere model used means that any conclusions drawn from these results should be taken with a very conservative pinch of salt. Nevertheless, this experiment showed me the importance of considering the possible effect of any change in one region on other parts of the world, and such large-scale atmospheric teleconnections are being increasingly found by modelling experiments. One study found that during the transition out of the African Humid Period, attenuation of meridional heat transport was initiated by the aridification (therefore albedo increase) of the Sahara, leading to a strong cooling over the Arctic; while another found a similar mechanism occurring with 65 Ma boundary conditions. Solar panels are dark in colour to absorb as much radiation as possible, however they do re-emit much of this energy. If you consider the construction of huge solar arrays in the Sahara as analogous to afforestation in terms of change in albedo, you should be able to see why modelling should not be neglected when assessing the possible implications of such an ambitious scheme.
Today I learned that I'm a Millenial. My fellow Millenial Finn Harries argues that we Millennials must keep up the pressure following the Paris climate deal. Are you a Millenial? I hope this article inspires you take action. The future of the world is in Millenial hands, as it is our "responsibility to find practical solutions to the environmental problems we have inherited". Arise, Millenials, arise!
Please excuse the sardony, it's getting late, and I didn't get the game I wanted for Christmas. I'll be sincere for a moment, because this article did get me thinking about the way older generations might think differently about COP21. This is particularly topical, given that the winter holiday period is considered a time for friends and family to come together. Let me know; in your conversations with those closest to you, do you ever discuss environmentalism? If so, do you see any difference in the attitudes between your contemporaries and your elders with regard to issues such as climate change, land use, and biodiversity?
Kindly follow the link below to watch Christiane Amanpour interview the head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, who was yesterday recognised as one of Nature's Ten people who mattered in science this year, on the achievements of COP21.
Something that jumped out at me is part of the interviewee's response to the criticism that the emissions reductions pledges made at the conference do not seem to be enough to meet a 2 °C target (~ 04:45).
"We do have major technologies that are only beginning to step into their potential and what this calls is forward is to actually exploit the full potential of [renewables], and of course there are other technologies that are coming on board and that I think are going to be accelerated by this huge push . . . This is not something that is going to be solved at the stroke of a pen, or even at the gavelling of a legal document . . . What has to happen now is that [evolutions in capital, technology and policy] can and will be accelerated through this global agreement."
Count how many times the words 'capital' and 'technology' are repeated over the course of this interview. It appears to me that Ms Figueres wants to stress that the UN's climate change strategy is not so much one of curbing emissions, but reliance instead on business to invest in mitigation technologies – an attitude that makes me rather uneasy.
Also, for some reason, I also find the use of the word 'exploit' in this quote very, very droll.
Over at The Global Hot Potato, Chloe has been posting a bunch of environmentally friendly recipes, all in the spirit of COP21. They've been making me hungry as they pop up on my blogfeed, and I particularly want to try my hand at putting a Durban twist (read: add chilli powder) on the beefless stroganoff. Not too long ago I would have scoffed at the idea of voluntarily omitting meat from a dish, and I think most of my generation would have done the same. Over the last few years, however, many of my friends have begun following vegan or vegetarian diets, and for various different reasons. For some, the suffering of animals in the meat industry is too much to bear. Some are unable to support the cruel practices they observe in industrial agriculture, while one friend believes it's simply unethical to take the life of another creature for personal benefit. For others, it's not so much an animal welfare issue as one of health - physical, mental and spiritual. However, the most frequent case I've heard from proponents of the veg-lifestyle is an environmental one.
I promise you that I have no real intention to sell you anything, to influence what you put on your plate this evening. However, for the sake of argument, I will do my best imitation, from the perspective of a science-minded environmentalist. It shouldn't be difficult; I think we can all acknowledge that the production of meat for food is particularly unkind to the environment. This study developed a simulation model of a cattle farming system to assess its efficiency, finding it takes 6 – 9 times more feed to produce an equivalent quantity of North-American Hereford beef. Meat is not just energy intensive product, it's also a messy one. At the moment, nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from pastoral agriculture, and this is a figure that can only grow as meat consumption rapidly increases across the developing world. Modelling has been used to increase our understanding of the historical impact of agriculture on the climate change, and how that will change in the future as the farmed surface area grows. It doesn't look like it will be a positive one, and it's clear that we all need to reduce our meat intake.
Contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions of pastoral farming, reproduced from McMichael et al (2007). People always tell me it's mostly cow's farting and burping, but it turns to be a load of bull plop.
I was trying to be careful in my wording earlier in the first paragraph: I specifically didn't say 'have become vegan or vegetarian', as diet is not always a strong part of a person's identity. Consider the reverse: consumption of meat does not necessarily a badge-wearing Meat Eater make. That said, for many, what you put into your stomach is indeed a core component of self-image, and there are two social groups in whom I've noticed this most strongly. The parkour community (if you don't know then I insist you watch) is the first of these. For many of parkour's most ardent enthusiasts the body is a temple, and veganism its central religion.The second is a group that is more loosely defined: environmentalists. Among my fellow Geography undergraduates at Bristol, it wasn't particularly uncommon to find people who claimed to care about the environment. However I think my first encounter with environmentalists of the more dedicated breed was at the student environmental research camp EURENSSA, hosted this summer on a permaculture farm bordering the Saxon Switzerland National Park. I could (and probably will) dedicate some serious blog-inches to talking about this amazing experience, but for now I'll let you watch this to get some sense of the vibe*:
At EURENSSA 2015, on order from it's student organisers, meat was off the menu from day one. For me it was a pleasant surprise. It had probably been years since I'd gone a day without eating flesh, and I regularly eat a carton of eggs in one sitting, but it did feel good in a way I can't really explain. I wasn't alone in the lack of complaint; the majority of its participants, students in the environmental sciences, were keen environmentalists for whom veganism is a central tenet of their approach to life.
Clearly then, some consider it very important to eat green. Given what you're studying, and what I'm sure you know about the environmental impact of raising livestock, do you think it's possible to reconcile meat consumption with environmentalism? Does one have to be vegan or vegetarian to be able to call themselves an environmentalist? Do you even consider yourself to be an environmentalist? Let me know in the comment section below.
* I'm secretly hoping you clicked through randomly, and so didn't see any fish.
As I discussed in an earlier post, climate modelling studies have generally been unable to simulate the magnitudeof greening indicated by proxy evidence. Up until now, it has served my narrative nicely to treat the palaeodata as if they were gospel. By ignoring the possibility of any uncertainty in observations, it follows logically that any model-data disagreement is due to error in the model. If your experiments results aren't pretty then they must be wrong, right?
It should be pretty obvious that this isn't true.
The cool tropics paradox is a a textbook example of the dangers of having too much faith in palaeodata. During the greenhouse of the late Cretaceous (~66 Ma), conditions at the poles were positively balmy, warm enough for crocodiles to thrive. However, the sea-surface temperature signal recorded in benthic foraminifera fossils (δ18O) appeared to indicated that tropics were cooler than they are today. As illustrated in the plot below, climate models were unable to reproduce this relatively flat latitudinal temperature gradient.
Model temperatures indicated by dotted line, palaeodata temperatures by solid line. Reproduced from Poulsen et al. (1999).
In fact, for GCMs to simulate the conditions indicated by the proxy temperature signal would have required an overhaul of the understanding of the physics governing poleward heat transport. Thankfully, it turned out that much of the model-proxy disagreement was due to error in the palaeodata — poor preservation of the foram fossils altered the δ18O signal to produce unrealistically low temperatures at low latitudes. This later inspired the development of more robust proxy archives such as TEX86 and Mg/Ca, which provided further support of models.
I'm discussing the cool tropics paradox to illustrate why, when comparing models and data, it is important to validate each with the other. While it is expected for modellers to be critical of their experiment results, it is key to remember that observations, too, cannot always be trusted. I will be exploring an example that is more relevant Green Sahara example in my next post.
