It's reference 3 on my 'license to chill' paper on the commercial implications http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461452916630082 It's available FOC on my academia.edu profile
Andrew Lockley On 5 Jul 2017 16:26, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Could you provide a citation for the established link? > Thanks, > Greg > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > There's an established link between SRM and CDR, via increasing ocean > acidification by dissolution. > > MCB would seem to be more directly effective than SRM, as nearly 100pc of > its effects go into cooling the ocean surface and lower Tropospheric air > over the ocean. > > Has anyone modelled this? If not, can someone please put it on their "to > do' list? > > A > > On 5 Jul 2017 06:22, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Greg, cc list: >> >> 1. Thanks for alerting us on 1 July to the cloudiness-CDR-related >> message found at the Russ George website (http://russgeorge.net/2017/0 >> 7/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-dimini >> shing-cloudiness/ ). I hope others can chime in on the validity of >> the strong relationship George asserts between phytoplankton and clouds. >> Is this as important as the much discussed SRM option involving ships >> spraying salt particles to help form clouds? >> >> 2. Your brief cite from Russ George refers to “a new paper” - which >> (free and 9 pages) can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley. >> com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000601/epdf, entitled: >> “Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest >> questions in climate science?” >> with first author Robert Wood. The “biggest question” is of course >> related to cloud formation as stated in your quote below from Russ George. >> 3. I was amazed at the many messages at the George site that relate to >> geoengineering and this cloud topic (and *NOT* to Russ George’s fame >> with OIF = Ocean Iron Fertilization). Examples of cites that I found >> relating to this cloud-plankton topic: >> a. https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/ >> geoengineering/Wood_Ackerman_CLIMATICCHANGE_2013.pdf (A predecessor to >> the above “biggest question” paper. >> >> b. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034/ >> Microalgae-The-Potential-for-Carbon-Capture A 2010 article by Sayre >> (recommended by Russ George): >> >> c. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/clouds-plankton >> a short free 2014 more non-technical contribution on the sulfur aspects. >> >> d. James Lovelock in a later book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’ in 2006, >> refers to his Anti-CLAW Hypothesis. CLAW comes from four last names - with >> L for Lovelock. This shows that this is not a new topic. I hope some >> on the list with a real background (I have none) can give other opinions on >> how seriously we should take Mr. George’s views on plankton-clouds-climate >> (as opposed to plankton and increased salmon production). >> >> 4. I suspect there could be a biochar side to this cloud aspect of ocean >> biomass - and possibly even to phytoplankton. I suspect you have probably >> given us this cite to agree with Ross George that the geo aspect deserves >> study. I am not expecting you or anyone on this list to agree that this >> should promote biochar. In fact, his emphasis on missing dust would say >> that biochar’s emphasis on increased “green-ness” is evidence that biochar >> should make less dust most likely. But I can also argue that biochar from >> ocean biomass (placed on land, not in the ocean) could/might more than >> offset the “dust-free” negative aspect of land-based biochar. Of course >> it opens the possibility of a much larger supply than available from the 28 >> % of the earth’s surface *NOT* ocean. >> >> 5. I also found the George message comparing the Sustainable >> Development Goals (SDGs) #14 (oceans) and #15 (land) to be particularly >> disturbing from a combined CDR/SRM perspective. Mr. George is >> particularly upset about the UN system doing too little with #14 (oceans). >> I believe you agree - and could be (?) the reason for your message >> below. This concern about SDG #14 (brand new to me) is on much more than >> this relationship between plankton and clouds - and could be worth >> considerable discussion by this list - as CDR might look more possible with >> a bigger supply. So this is a very separate reason for thanking you for >> your 1 July message below. I’ll send more on only this in the AM. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On Jul 1, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - >> Russ George >> <http://russgeorge.net/2017/07/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-diminishing-cloudiness/> >> >> Greatest Uncertainty In Climate Change Models Is Diminishing Cloudiness - >> R... >> Restoring ocean pastures and their cooling clouds in 10% of the area >> available would offset the warming from a d... >> >> <http://russgeorge.net/2017/07/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-diminishing-cloudiness/> >> >> >> "Climate scientists propose in a new paper published >> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000601/epdf> in the >> widely read open source science journal Earth’s Future that by restoring >> cloudiness to selected areas of distant oceans a planetary cooling >> effect sufficient to offset a doubling of greenhouse gas emissions could be >> achieved with as little as a 10% increase in cloudiness over pristine open >> ocean pasture regions. >> The authors note that climate model simulations indicate that regions of >> extensive marine low clouds account for a large portion of the global >> aerosol driven global cooling. They explain that while this may seem >> counter-intuitive, marine clouds in these pristine areas are very >> susceptible to small changes in aerosols." >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
