Geoengineering list:
1. In order to help those who might be looking for what this NAS
group might have said about Biochar, the answer is they used the word
twice in a single sentence on p 235 (out of 292pp). This is all they
could find to say:
/ "Incorporating biochar (charcoal from fast-growing trees or other
biomass that is burned in a low oxygen environment) has also been
proposed as a potentially effective way of taking carbon out of the
atmosphere; the resulting biochar can be added to soils for storage and
improvement of soil quality (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), although there
as been some debate about the longevity of the storage (Lehmann and
Sohi, 2008; Wardle etal, 2008)."/
2. Frankly, I am un-impressed. The NAS authors missed any mention
of significantly increased crop production, no mention of the extensive
terra preta history, no mention of N2O and CH4 capture, retention of
soil moisture, and the world-wide need to reclaim idle and degraded
land. There could have been mention of the IBI site which has put the
Lehmann-Wardle debate on a non-Biochar experiment to rest [see
.http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_soil_carbon_loss5-10.pdf
]
3. One sentence for Biochar? Even the Royal Academy did better
than that.
Ron
On 5/25/2010 7:20 AM, David Schnare wrote:
Ken:
There is now a substantial bureaucracy associated with climate change
(inside and outside of government). Like many in this group, they
have a hard core, unshakable belief that it is now too late to prevent
climate change, and thus they need to put their attention elsewhere.
Indeed, a shift has already begun to move away from concern over
carbon reduction to concern over endangered species - complete with
calls for an IPCC-like group to address the issue and develop a
"solution."
The only "solution" to climate change will now be adaptation,
including geoengineering. Hence, no need to argue about it all that
much any more, especially since the money pipeline to climate alarmism
is choked to overflowing, allowing some bit of the excess to go to
mitigation.
Personally, I believe we are going to see a more public push this fall
as the Arctic ice extent drops to only slightly above the 2007 levels.
That alarm will only ring for a little over a year as a major
recovery will occur in the coming two years so the min in 11 and 12
will be a greater extent than 09. NH ice is in a recovery, but in a
herky jerk one step down, two steps up fashion. The real turn in this
will come in 10-15 years when the AMO joins the PDO with cyclical cold
in tandem. By then, when geoengineering might actually be available
for implementation, we won't need it. But, just MHO.
David S.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Ken Caldeira
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the
National Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report
has received almost no comment in this group or in the media.
>
> This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have
weighed in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research
into geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The
National Academies call for research into solar radiation management
and everyone treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?".
>
> (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-report-calls-fo.html)
>
> I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research
into geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to
the point where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD
process) thinks it is obvious this research is necessary?
>
> I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching
solar radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although
field testing and deployment no doubt continues to be so).
>
> Comments?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> PS. Here is an extract.
>
> However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be
examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research
on fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to
limiting climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key
SRM-related research needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the
following:
>
> Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical
feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches.
>
> Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other
aspects of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the
oceans.
>
> Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a
model for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally
intervene in the climate system.
>
> Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that
effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> See attached report summary from "Advancing the Science of Climate
Change" + sections on Solar Radiation Management
>>
>> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
>>
>> Advancing the Science of Climate Change
>>
>> Status: Prepublication Available
>>
>> Size: 506 pages, 7 x 10
>>
>> Publication Year:2010
>>
>> Authors:
>> America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of
Climate Change; National Research Council
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Prepublication - What is it?
>>
>> An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of
the book.
>>
>> ___________________________________________________
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>
>> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
