Ken, Bhaskar, list 1. I will respond separately to Bhaskar (and therefor truncate this message re ISIS and biomass/O2).
2. I will respond separately to Ken's defense of Greenpeace received after this . 3. Re Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - I wish that we could treat her remarks as a joke. I find her opinions quite dangerous - because they are uninformed - especially in her dismissal of everything climate related to biomass , and especially Biochar. To really understand her material, you have to buy her figures and citations (the test is generally free.. To find what they cost, you first have to become a member of her group (which also provides a quarterly publication on almost anything and everything labeled "sustainablity".) I am unwilling to join anything with this publication policy. But I have seen (through a friend) her citations on Biochar. They are obviously cribbed from other similarly non-peer-reviewed anti-Biochar material. Not a joke. 4. She has a more recent 100% RE scenario, with essentially zero biomass (only some biogas) (WWF/Ecofys is about 40% in a report with similar title.) But cold fusion is in there. Not a joke. 5. Re O2, I certainly agree with Ken than the amount of lost O2 through combustion (and sequestration) is vanishingly small. But she goes further with Biochar, saying that char also eventually oxidizes (true). But the centuries to millenia before that oxidation, and the increased growth above ground apparently count for nothing with her. Dr. Ho is the only person I know (in whole world) who says that Biochar removes O2. I hope someone can explain how she can be correct in this assertion. She also says accelerated O2 changes are primarily due to increased production of biofuels (not mentioning fossil fuels, which gives me equal pause). However, I consider her misdiagnosed direction of O2 change for Biochar more serious than not understanding the small size of the reduced O2 changes that are occurring. She isn't discussing either aspect of O2 change as a joke. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: "bhaskarmv 64" <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 9:36:49 AM Subject: Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising I hope everyone recognizes that this must be some sort of joke. No reasonable scientist could believe that "carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans". I prefer to think that this is an attempt at humor, because I would not like to imagine that these people are innumerate crackpots. There are something like 3.7 x 10^21 moles of O2 in the atmosphere. If we are emitting say 10 GtC per year, and we round off to 10 g / molC, this is 10^15 moles C. So, at this rate we are depleting about 0.00003 % of the atmospheric O2 each year. This is not a policy concern. On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, M V Bhaskar < bhaskarmv...@gmail.com > wrote: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising <snip - response coming from RWL> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
