If you are going to use marine biomass for centralized (coastal) negative
emissions energy production, I would encourage you to convert and store the
resulting CO2 as ocean alkalinity*. That way no one can accuse you robbing
carbon from the ocean and not immediately returning it (in a much more
beneficial form), in contrast to CCS. Ditto for non C elements. Both the
gaseous and solid combustion effluent could be hydrated/reacted in the same
seawater+carbonate stream used above and returned to the sea. Thus "precious"
nutrients (and plankton souls) are respectfully returned to the ocean - only
marine energy is extracted and nothing else. Or would the environment (and
ethics) police label this as pollution (rather than cremation/at sea burial
after, admittedly, premature plankton death)? Proactive recycling of
biomass/nutrients is essential standard procedure in managed (ag) land
ecosystems, why not also marine
ones?Greg*http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x
From: M.Hori <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; Michael Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
Dear Dr. Hayes
Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging.
1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine
based infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for global
environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply.
2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its
features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than
terrestrial plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better be
centralized with easier assembling of biomass.
3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task are
both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks will
be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated
approach. The Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference concept in
this direction. I hope it will be upgraded, updated, revised and
combined with other processes for our global tasks.
Best regards,
Masao Hori
[email protected]
-------------------------------------
Michael Hayes wrote on 2016/04/22 8:16:
> Dr. Hori et al.,
>
> I found your work to be the most articulate view of the potential for a
> global scale C-neg regimen using the BECCS concept. I would like to ask
> your permission to reference your paper within a C-neg marine based
> infrastructure/investment concept which I'm currently working on. In
> brief, it is my view that using the many forms of marine based renewable
> energy for the production/processing/refinement of marine biomass, as
> opposed to land based energy (and other land resources), may offer the
> easiest path to truly large scale C-neg infrastructure investment.
> Further, the deployment of such large scale marine based C-neg
> infrastructure can also help address other pressing global issues,
> beyond the need for biofuels and biochar, inter alia the production of
> food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers, pharma, and even the
> production of freshwater. This list is not exhaustive.
>
> The list of potential marine biomass based downstream products is
> extensive and growing as new marine biomass based inventions and science
> emerge. Thus, based upon currently available technology and scientific
> knowledge, large scale investments may potentially be attracted to a
> marine based C-neg regime sooner than vast scale land based BECCS
> options. Once large scale marine BECCS production and a reasonable
> investment return are both proven out, large scale investments in land
> based nuclear energy based BECCS may become much easier to secure.
>
> There may be another technical option. China is currently committed to
> the development of and deployment of a rather large fleet of marine
> based nuclear plants. Coupling such marine based power infrastructure
> with marine BECCS would make many of the drawbacks currently found
> within the land based BECCS concept /simply moot/. Importantly, the
> addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream
> marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a
> reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact
> that both biofuel and biochar are low margin products and both product
> streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.
>
> To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered BECCS option should be
> considered as being central within the overall BECCS discussion due to
> its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to
> include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas
> and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a
> central idea as you point out in your paper /**/"The task of removing CO
> 2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project,
> andit would evolve into creating new big environment/energy
> businesses.". If this effort is to reach the needed scale, it will
> require relatively secure and prosperous investment options at both the
> initial stage of deployment as well as for generations to come. I
> believe marine based BECCS has the potential for early stage success
> which can pave the way for a long-term (generational) mix of BECCS
> options...including the nuclear.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-7, mhori wrote:
>
> I tried to construct a Carbon Negative Energy System, which enables the
> CDR and energy supply integrally, by full use of available ‘clean’
> (non-carbon emitting) energy sources – renewable (biomass, solar, wind,
> hydro, etc.) and nuclear energies. The executive summary of this report
> was distributed to this list October last year, and the copy can be
> downloaded from below;
>
> "CARBON-NEGATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM -- Sustainable World Energy Supply and
> Global Environment Restoration Using Renewable and Nuclear Energies"
> (2015)
> http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf
> <http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf>
>
> The concept is as follows;
>
> C: Carbon in biomass, typically C6H10O5
>
> By the carbonization of biomass;
>
> C (biomass) -> C (biochar) + C (volatile)
>
> C (biochar) is up to a half of C (biomass) in usual carbonization
> process, and this biochar acts as the CDR.
>
> By the steam gasification process of the remaining C (volatile) ;
>
> C (volatile) + H2O -> CO + H2
>
> This [CO + H2] (Syngas or synthesis gas) is used as important
> industrial
> resources (for process and energy).
>
> Syngas can also be used to produce hydrocarbons (CH2 in constituent
> ratio) such as diesel oil, which could replace petroleum products for
> transportation and other fields as ‘clean’ fuels.
>
> A typical process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis as follows;
>
> CO + 2H2 -> CH2 + H2O
>
> In the above processes, the steam gasification process is a strong
> endothermic reaction which needs large heat (131 kJ/mol). This heat can
> be supplied from biomass itself by combusting part of it, but if the
> heat is supplied by nuclear energy, the effective carbon removal amount
> (by both biochar and biofuel) can be increased about 60% compared to
> biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.
>
> It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the
> processed
> biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are limited,
> and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
> circumstances.
>
> By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
> contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
> effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat
> loss
> during the processes.
>
> A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by
> this
> Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.
>
>
> Masao Hori
> Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
> Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
> Email: [email protected] <javascript:>
> ----------------------------
>
> Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:
>
> > I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
> > production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
> > figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
> > hydrogen rather than the carbon). If $100/tonne CO2 is a
> showstopper for
> > negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
> to BE
> > the darling of this field? The energy penalty for CCS is on the
> order of
> > 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
> increase
> > land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)
> > The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
> production
> > may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
> required).
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> > *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>>;
> Geoengineering
> > <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global
> record
> >
> > Greg and list
> >
> > My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
> > papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing
> quite
> > rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks
> (even
> > in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
> > increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
> > from voluntary CDR payments today.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]
> <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ron,
> >> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
> >> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
> >> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc
> --->
> >> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
> >> e.g. silicates -
> >> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ +
> 4HCO3- +
> >> SiO2s
> >> e.g. carbonates:
> >> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
> >> See the links I listed earlier.
> >> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to
> electrolytic H2
> >> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
> >> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges
> from
> >> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
> >> G
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> >> *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> >> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering
> >> <[email protected] <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
> global
> >> record
> >>
> >> Greg, Stephen, list
> >>
> >> 1. Re Stephen’s idea: Sounds like an idea where the next
> >> step will have to be by the US air force (or someone’s
> >> military). Starting with 200 passenger designs wouldn’t
> seem
> >> to go very far.
> >>
> >> 2. I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft
> - but
> >> Helium should be considered as well. I believe we are still
> >> venting a lot.
> >>
> >> 3. To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs
> >> lower than $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking
> >> co-products of biochar and jet fuel. Not happening now (I
> >> gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the anticipated
> $100/bbl.
> >>
> >> 4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with
> either
> >> solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?
> Seems to
> >> me it has to be biochar.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau
> <[email protected] <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative
> >>> emissions H2:
> >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
> <http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full>
> >>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875>
> >>> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for
> a price).
> >>>
> >>> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about
> >>> zeppelins? I know that Hindenberg incident over here last
> >>> century didn't help this technology (the Led Zepplin album
> >>> cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire
> >>> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and
> for
> >>> propulsion? Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof.
> >>> Northcott's desire for more civilized travel (his Action
> Item
> >>> 11 below).
> >>>
> >>> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel,
> >>> and Mr. Musk has now demonstrated the soft vertical landing
> >>> of such. Was that landing on a rolling barge in the open
> >>> ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is it just
> >>> me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>> *From:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> >>> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
> >>> global record
> >>>
> >>> Hi All
> >>> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for
> >>> aircraft fuel. It has a great weight advantage but
> also
> >>> a severe volume disadvantage. This could be partly
> >>> overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes
> >>> landing on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an
> Airbus
> >>> 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers and their
> luggage.
> >>> A note with sketches is attached.
> >>> Stephen
> >>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of
> >>> Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road,
> >>> Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland [email protected]
> <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>, Tel +44
> (0)131 650 5704, Cell
> >>> 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
> <http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>
> >>> <http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
> <http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>>, YouTube Jamie Taylor
> >>> Power for Change
> >>> On 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
> >>>> Dear Michael,
> >>>> Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present
> >>>> madness", but just in case all of those suggested
> aren't
> >>>> adopted in the next few decades it would seem immoral
> >>>> not to at least hope for additional options just in
> case
> >>>> 1-11 don't pan out in time. As for crossing the the
> >>>> "large scale", "totalitarian" and "public debt"
> >>>> thresholds, something tells me that it's going to
> take
> >>>> some very large scale, draconian implementation to
> >>>> execute 1-11 in the dwindling time remaining, and many
> >>>> of these activities will require capital and
> investment
> >>>> from somewhere.
> >>>> Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job
> >>>> consuming more than half of our CO2 emissions and
> >>>> actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each
> >>>> year*. So given this positive example and the task we
> >>>> face, how immoral might it be to see if there are safe
> >>>> and cost effectively ways to increase or add to this
> >>>> natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey on
> >>>> more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to take
> >>>> longer than demanded by the recently lowered and oh so
> >>>> moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>*<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
>
><https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>>https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
>
><https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Greg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>> *From:* NORTHCOTT Michael <[email protected]
> <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> *To:* "[email protected] <javascript:>"
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> *Cc:* "[email protected] <javascript:>"
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
> >>>> "[email protected] <javascript:>"
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]
> <javascript:>>; Greg Rau
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
> >>>> James Hansen <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>; P.
> Wadhams
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>; John
> >>>> Topping <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
> Robert Corell
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
> Peter R Carter
> >>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
> >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes
> >>>> 100-year global record
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi John
> >>>>
> >>>> The course of action to slow the rate of
> warming (it
> >>>> is 0.1 degree per decade not 0.2) and
> ultimately to
> >>>> stop it requires all of the following. Young
> people
> >>>> and climate activists the world over are
> calling for
> >>>> these things and campaigning actively and at
> cost of
> >>>> their freedom sometimes to bring them about:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Ending tropical forest burning
> >>>> 2. Stopping building of new coal and oil fired
> power
> >>>> stations (Turkey and India and S Africa are
> planning
> >>>> 100s) and ending coal extraction by China,
> >>>> Indonesia, and even Australia, Germany US and
> UK who
> >>>> have no conceivable need to continue extracting
> the
> >>>> stuff given the wealth already at the disposal of
> >>>> their citizens and corporations
> >>>> 3. Closing existing coal and oil fired electric
> >>>> power plants
> >>>> 4. Reforesting uplands, reducing sheep grazing,
> and
> >>>> increasing uptake of co2 in agric land with
> biochar,
> >>>> compost etc
> >>>> 5. Ending expansion of air sea and road travel and
> >>>> moving all road and sea travel to electric
> vehicles
> >>>> and wind. Rationing air travel to gradually shift
> >>>> international and national travellers to other
> means.
> >>>> 6. Moving all electricity production to renewable
> >>>> power and battery / reservoir storage of back
> up power.
> >>>> 7. Reengineering older buildings with insulation.
> >>>> 8. Requiring all new builds to generate own power
> >>>> and be zero carbon
> >>>> 9. Reducing shipping and flying of food by
> favouring
> >>>> local over global food production.
> >>>> 10. Ending large scale animal husbandry and moving
> >>>> mainstream human protein requirements to beans,
> >>>> vegetables etc.
> >>>> 11. Favour pedestrians, cyclists and electric
> bikes,
> >>>> segways, electric wheelchairs etc in all city
> >>>> planning and movement infrastructure
> >>>>
> >>>> Globally these measures would generate at least a
> >>>> billion of jobs, reduce deaths from pollution, and
> >>>> reduce health costs of cancers, heart disease,
> >>>> obesity and air pollution, and reduce
> concentrations
> >>>> of wealth by putting capacity to generate power,
> >>>> grow food and move around back in the hands of
> >>>> householders and local communities. None of them
> >>>> require large scale totalitarian and public
> >>>> debt-based technologies of the kind represented
> by CDR.
> >>>>
> >>>> We need moral alternatives to the present madness.
> >>>> We need to argue for them in every possible forum
> >>>> and embrace them ourselves. Arming the future
> >>>> against the sun is a counsel of despair.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor of Ethics
> >>>> University of Edinburgh
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17 Apr 2016, at 17:10, John Nissen
> >>>> <<mailto:[email protected]
> <javascript:>>[email protected] <javascript:>
> >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Professor Mann,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of us would like to keep global warming
> below
> >>>>> 1.5C this century. But we are way off course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody likes to admit in public that we are
> already
> >>>>> in dangerous territory. But we are!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rate of global warming (near-surface
> >>>>> temperature rise) could now exceed 0.2 C per
> >>>>> decade; CO2 is above 400 ppm (an excess of 120
> ppm
> >>>>> above pre-industrial 280 ppm) of which most will
> >>>>> remain this century due to CO2's long lifetime in
> >>>>> the atmosphere; and we have already had over 1 C
> >>>>> anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This means
> >>>>> that, even with the most drastic cut in CO2
> >>>>> emissions, we cannot avoid an extremely dangerous
> >>>>> 3C this century without aggressive CO2 removal
> >>>>> (CDR). Indeed, if we want to keep AGW below
> 1.5 C
> >>>>> this century and halt ocean acidification,
> then we
> >>>>> need to get global warming rate down below 0.05 C
> >>>>> per decade, i.e. less than a quarter the
> current rate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thus climate forcing has to be reduced by 75%
> >>>>> within a decade or two, to have a chance to keep
> >>>>> below 1.5 C this century.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thus we have to reduce the CO2 level to around
> 210
> >>>>> ppm (30 ppm above pre-industrial 280 ppm), and
> >>>>> reduce methane from 1.8 ppm to around 1.0 ppm in
> >>>>> order to reduce their combined forcing by 75%.
> >>>>> This assumes we maintain aerosol cooling,
> >>>>> especially the SO2 cooling from coal-fired power
> >>>>> stations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is exacerbated by climate forcing from the
> >>>>> Arctic, at around 0.5 W/m2 and rising
> exponentially
> >>>>> as albedo loss accelerates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore, in addition to urgent CO2 emissions
> >>>>> reduction, we need (i) aggressive CDR so that CO2
> >>>>> is soon being removed from the atmosphere faster
> >>>>> than than it is being emitted, (ii)
> suppression of
> >>>>> methane emissions, especially fugitive methane
> >>>>> (iii) rapid cooling of the Arctic to restore
> >>>>> albedo, and (iv) maintenance of SO2 aerosol
> >>>>> cooling, if global warming is to be kept below
> 1.5
> >>>>> C this century.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you agree or can you suggest an alternative
> >>>>> course of action to avert extreme danger?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Nissen
> >>>>> Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Greg Rau
> >>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>
> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
>
><http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
>
><http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
>
><http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> "The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new
> >>>>> record
> >>>>>
>
><http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally
>
><http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally>>,
>
> >>>>> meaning the global temperature record is
> set to
> >>>>> have been broken for three years in a row.
> >>>>> Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at
> Penn
> >>>>> State University in the US, responded to the
> >>>>> March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be
> >>>>> shocked by what we are seeing.” He said the
> >>>>> world had now been hovering close to the
> >>>>> threshold of “dangerous” warming for two
> >>>>> months, something not seen before.
> >>>>> “The [new data] is a reminder of how
> perilously
> >>>>> close we now are to permanently crossing into
> >>>>> dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It
> >>>>> underscores the urgency of reducing global
> >>>>> carbon emissions.”
> >>>>> GR - and the need to seriously consider
> >>>>> additional ways of managing CO2 and climate.
>
> --
> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
