I belieave there is a plan for a large scale afforestation effort along the
sub sahara.

"ATTEMPTS to slow down climate change by large-scale geo-engineering
present ''serious risks'' and are unlikely to replace the need to cut
greenhouse gas emissions, Australia's chief scientist has warned." Is not
afforestation a reconized form of GE? Did I miss that part of GE 101?

Also, here is a link to an oceanic c4 plant senario posted to the group
which dates back to last summer. Just need 6% of the planet surface and the
CO2 issue and much of the fuel issue could be handled.

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion

Michael

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "The simplest way to remove carbon from the air is the planting of forests
> on a massive scale but the limitations of suitable land, water and
> nutrients mean it can only play a small part in reducing emissions.
> ''Estimates suggest that, at best, about 2 to 4 per cent of greenhouse gas
> emissions from human activities could be offset this way,'' the report
> said."
>
> but >50% of annual anthro CO2 emissions is already mitigated by nature's
> own geoengineering. - G
>
> full report here:  http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/04/ops1/
>
> Geo-engineering 'a risk' in climate change battle
> April 10, 2012
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/geoengineering-a-risk-in-climate-change-battle-20120409-1wl7a.html
>
> ATTEMPTS to slow down climate change by large-scale geo-engineering
> present ''serious risks'' and are unlikely to replace the need to cut
> greenhouse gas emissions, Australia's chief scientist has warned.
>
> In an overview of schemes proposed by scientists, researchers at the
> Office of the Chief Scientist say the main methods of planetary-scale
> engineering would confront big problems with technical feasibility,
> political co-operation and cost. But research should be pursued in the hope
> of developing last-ditch methods to slow climate change.
>
> ''Given the difficulty in implementing global action to reduce CO2
> emissions from human activities and their continued growth, geo-engineering
> is one possible approach to combat global warming,'' it said.
>
>
> ''Geo-engineering would not moderate all the effects of rising emissions,
> and will introduce its own risks and uncertainties.''
>
> Humans already play a role in dictating the Earth's climate by adding
> greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - raising carbon dioxide levels by about
> 40 per cent since the Industrial Revolution - and by clearing forests to
> reduce the amount of carbon the land absorbs. But the deliberate management
> of global climate is still confined to theory, backed by a few small-scale
> experiments.
>
> The report divides geo-engineering solutions to climate change into two
> basic types - plans to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and plans
> to block some of the sun's heat before it gets here.
>
> They include fertilising the oceans with iron filings, to stimulate the
> growth of algae, which absorbs CO2 and then sinks to the ocean floor, and
> sowing the atmosphere with sulphates, which deflect some of the sun's rays
> away from Earth.
>
> The simplest way to remove carbon from the air is the planting of forests
> on a massive scale but the limitations of suitable land, water and
> nutrients mean it can only play a small part in reducing emissions.
> ''Estimates suggest that, at best, about 2 to 4 per cent of greenhouse gas
> emissions from human activities could be offset this way,'' the report said.
>
> Ocean fertilisation is also likely to be ineffective on a large scale, and
> the best estimates suggest only a few per cent of human emissions could be
> offset this way, the report concluded. This is because many marine
> organisms feed on algae, ultimately returning its CO2 to the surface,
> because the ocean waters mix together, bringing deep water back to the
> surface. There would also be unknown side effects on fish.
>
> Like efforts to absorb more CO2, efforts to shield the planet from some of
> the sun's rays would need to be kept up more or less forever, lest there be
> a sudden surge of extra heat.
>
> Releasing sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere is one method
> canvassed in the chief scientist's report. The cheapest and most effective
> technique of doing this could be connecting long tubes to a sulphate source
> and raising them into the atmosphere by means of balloons.
>
> But the potential drawbacks are many, including reducing rainfall over
> land masses, hampering the regeneration of the ozone layer and causing acid
> rain. If the scheme failed or was stopped, temperatures would rise very
> quickly.
>
> The findings of the Australian report are similar to those of recent
> studies undertaken by Britain's Royal Society and the US Task Force on
> Climate Remediation Research.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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.

Reply via email to