Thank you Colleagues. I wish to undertake a simple test by placing some olivine rocks inside a Hamster Ball e.g.( http://www.aquazorbs.com ) mixed with seawater and subject them to movements such as rolling and bumping etc caused by wave/wind action on the ocean surface. After suitable time intervals like days/weeks/months some of the contents inside will be collected and some measurements made related to weathering. These rocks ideally should be around 1/2-3cm in size with a maximum weight of 100kg including seawater. If there is an interest to engage an undergraduate student to work on this test at a suitable location pls let me know.
Parminder Singh Independent Civil Engineer Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 3:04:38 AM UTC+8, andrewjlockley wrote: > > > http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nordhaus-unwittingly-shows-flaws-in-case-for-carbon-tax/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nordhaus-unwittingly-shows-flaws-in-case-for-carbon-tax > > Extract > > There are two ways to slow climate change, and thereby to reduce the > likelihood of catastrophic damages. One is the hard slog of reducing > emissions. The other is to use geoengineering that attempts to offset the > CO2-induced warming. > > Wagner and Weitzman provide an illuminating discussion of the dilemmas of > geoengineering. Geoengineering here means management of solar > radiation—techniques that reflect sunlight back into space and prevent it > from warming the earth’s climate. You can think of the process as making > the earth “whiter” or more reflective, so that less sunlight is absorbed by > the surface of the earth. This cooling effect will offset the warming that > comes from the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. > > The whitening process is similar to what occurs after large volcanic > eruptions. After Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blasted 20 million tons > of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in 1991, global temperatures fell > by about half a degree centigrade because the particles reflected sunlight > away from the earth. Geoengineering can be understood as creating > artificial volcanic eruptions, where several artificial Pinatubo-sized > eruptions may be needed every year to offset the warming effects of CO2 > accumulation. > > Many proposals have emerged to whiten the earth. These, along with many of > the ethical, political, national security, and environmental dimensions of > such projects, are discussed in a recent report by the National Academy of > Sciences. The standard approach is to deliver sulfur-bearing compounds, > presumably specially engineered ones that would act as small mirrors, into > the lower stratosphere. A number of techniques have been proposed to do > this, such as using naval guns, aircraft, or rockets. Recent studies > indicate that such geoengineering can lower global temperatures at very low > cost relative to other approaches, such as reducing carbon emissions. > > Even though the costs are low and the average impacts on temperature are > clear, the dangers are frightening, as is emphasized by Wagner and Weitzman > as well as by the National Academy report. The NAS committee concludes that > climate “modification strategies are limited primarily by considerations of > risk, not by direct costs.” Among the risks are the facts that > geoengineering does nothing to reduce the ocean acidification caused by > increased CO2; that countries would need to keep a program going virtually > forever; that there is a mismatch between the cooling and heating effects; > and that there is a high likelihood for redistribution of precipitation in > the different regions of the world. An effective program would require > virtual unanimity in international governance so as to reduce political > frictions among countries. [Nordhaus, bold added] > > What is fascinating is that if you go to the actual book review and read > the full discussion, you will see that people like Weitzman and Nordhaus > are discussing whether people should even be conducting cursory research > into geoengineering options. > > Why in the world would interventionists who think the fate of humanity > hangs in the balance not want scientists to broaden the options at our > grandchildren’s disposal? What they fear is that if the public realizes > there are techniques “on the shelf” that could very quickly and cheaply > bring down global temperatures, then it would be hard to get humanity > whipped up into a frenzy in spending trillions of dollars to merely reduce > the probability of a future unlikely “fat tail” catastrophe. > > Remember, the cutting-edge case for aggressive intervention against > emissions has stopped trying to claim that a high carbon tax will likely > produce large net benefits. For example, in this post I use the latest IPCC > report to show that in the most likely future scenario, the economic costs > of limiting temperature to 2 degrees Celsius of warming will exceed the > benefits of avoided climate change damage. > > So already the aggressive interventionists have to make the “fat tail” > argument of Weitzman and others—they have to say a disaster might occur if > humans keep pumping lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But then in > that case, it becomes very relevant to know that one of the leading > geoengineering proposals would cost $250 million total to limit Earth’s > warming. That’s less than Al Gore’s foundation is spending to “raise > awareness” on the issue of climate change. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
