from:"'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering"

Re: [geo] Climate Activists With Cheap Balloons Could Create a DIY Geoengineering Nightmare

2019-03-05 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Balloons the No. 1 marine debris risk of mortality for seabirds

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA
A new IMAS and CSIRO collaborative study has found that balloons are the
highest-risk plastic debris item for seabirds -- 32 times more likely to kill
than ingesting hard plastics. Researchers from IMAS, CSIRO and ACE CRC looked
at the cause of death of 1,733 seabirds from 51 species and found that one in
three of the birds had ingested marine debris.

- JOURNAL
- Scientific Reports
Full release https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/uot-bt022719.php

MaggieOn Monday, March 4, 2019, 6:15:21 PM GMT+1, Greg Rau
wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612953/climate-activists-with-cheap-balloons-could-create-a-diy-geoengineering-nightmare/
“The scenario would go something like this. It’s the year 2051. A decade of
drought, crop failure, and famine has killed millions across East Africa,
sparking violent clashes over food and water. Similar scenes of death and
devastation are playing out in other parts of the globe.
In response, an environmental group, or maybe a humanitarian one, or perhaps
just some individual with a huge social-media following, calls for a radical
response: every citizen should launch high-altitude balloons into the sky, each
carrying a small payload of particles that could reflect heat back into space.

This kind of distributed, DIY geoengineering scheme appears technically
feasible, which raises troubling questions about the ability to regulate such
technologies, according to a white paper published on the website of the
Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center late last year.

It notes that hobbyist kits for unmanned high-altitude balloons can already be
purchased for as little as $25, and imagines that such a campaign could be
coordinated using social media, blockchain, and crowdfunding sites.”

--
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.

[geo] Warming waters -> Vit B1 deficiency -> fish & sea bird population collapse

2018-10-17 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

(While not directly an article on geoengineering, this one is relevant to 
background understanding on any geoengineering ideas involving the oceans.)
Two suggested causes of this apparent thiamine deficiency at the base of 
aquatic food web - potentially extremely catastrophic:
1. warming waters --> more bacterial growth --> more vit B1 consumption by 
bacteria --> less available for phytoplanktons and up the food chain.
2. nitrogen and phosphorous pollution --> cyanobacteria blooms --> zooplankton 
starved of thiamine --> less thiamine available up the food chain.

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/42/10532

News Feature: Deadly deficiency at the heart of an environmental mystery

Natasha Gilbert

PNAS October 16, 2018 115 (42) 10532-10536; 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815080115
Excerpts:
'Sañudo-Wilhelmy has measured very low levels of B vitamins, including 
thiamine, in coastal waters around California. Other researchers have estimated 
similar scarcities in some areas of the open ocean (16). Warming waters due to 
climate change could explain the seawater vitamin scarcity, he says. Warmer 
temperatures speed bacterial growth, making the microbes consume more B 
vitamins than they produce—gobbling up the vitamins before the phytoplankton 
can take their share.'
'Sañudo-Wilhelmy suggests that a slightly different imbalance could have caused 
thiamine deficiencies around the Baltic Sea, where nitrogen and phosphorous 
pollution likely play a role. Large blooms of cyanobacteria—toxic blue-green 
algae—are common in the Baltic Sea during the summer because of eutrophication. 
Work from researchers at Linnaeus University in Sweden found that 
zooplankton—tiny aquatic animals that feed on phytoplankton—were starved of 
thiamine during such blooms (17). As a result, the vitamin no longer gets 
passed up the food chain to small fish that feed on the zooplankton or to top 
predators that feed on the fish, says one of the study’s authors, aquatic 
ecologist Samuel Hylander. Sañudo-Wilhelmy says that the growing number of 
toxic cyanobacteria blooms occurring around the world could cause similar 
thiamine deficiencies elsewhere, suggesting another potential route for the 
problem to become widespread.'


Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543Twitter: 
@mzhou_usmzhou...@yahoo.com+41 61 535 0508 (Switzerland, landline)

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Re: MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

2018-08-21 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

So I must have misunderstood something.  Why did you write:
"As discussed in my original post, a significant scaling of synthetic cosmic 
rays is possible, over background levels (3-5 orders) This may give a large 
climate signal, sufficient to analyse the effect with a view to using it for 
CE."
I re-read your original post and it didn't seem to reconcile the "3-5 orders" 
increase vs. what you just wrote.  Could you clarify further?
Thanks,Maggie   On Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 8:59:24 AM GMT+2, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 The original proposal would be a doubling of low energy cosmic rays. That's 
equivalent to a 30pc increase in background radiation (particle number, not 
energy), for anyone under the beam. It would be limited to those people who 
lived in or travelled through in the ocean. There are many ways to mitigate 
this exposure, such as sod roofing. Such shielding could well reduce exposure 
below background. Lower-flying platforms would be able to avoid islands, 
shipping, etc. In any case, most of the background damage is likely to be from 
higher energy rays, which I've not proposed. 
Balloons used for this purpose would be no more dangerous than those proposed 
for data. 
Direct effects on plankton would be negligible, the chances of any one plankton 
encountering a particle would be of the order of millions:1 or more. 




On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, 15:07 Maggie Zhou,  wrote:

A 3-5 orders increase of synthetic cosmic rays over background levels?  Am I 
missing something?
Even if technically feasible, what about impact on life on earth?  Birds, 
airliners, marine life... 
Phytoplanktons emit dimethyl sulfide (DMS) which eventually leads to aerosol 
formation and cloud cover.  The CLAW hypothesis postulates this as part of 
planetary homeostasis.  So what would a 3-5 orders increase of cosmic rays do 
to phytoplanktons, and the natural cloud coverage they enable?  And to the 
oxygen that phytoplanktons provide us with?
Even if shooting from below, what's the fate of millions of balloons in the 
atmosphere?  What goes up must come down...  And the footprint of millions of 
jets?  Again, danger to birds and airliners?
Maggie   On Monday, August 20, 2018, 11:23:19 AM GMT+2, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 Thanks for your question, Oliver.
The reason to use a space based system is similar to the approach for earth 
observation satellites - even coverage. A satellite in GS orbit can 'see' 
roughly a third to a half of the world. Because the atmosphere is thin, 
compared to the size of the earth, most beam attenuation is likely to occur in 
the troposphere, where 75pc of the air is. That means a satellite mounted 
system would only have to penetrate a few kms of thick atmosphere, at most.
Crudely, I'm assuming beam range and power scale together. A kW system gives 
you kms, MW gives you thousands of kms. (I said GW in an earlier email, which 
would be the case if you relied on lossy accelerators for high particle energy, 
not high density, as Russell helpfully pointed out.) 
By contrast, a ground-mounted system would have to work over distances 3-4 
orders greater. A ship-based system would be technically viable, but its slow 
speed would inhibit its coverage, quickly reaching local saturation - unless 
you used a high energy beam to reach 1000kms or so. A high-energy system would 
need to be mounted on a ship the scale of an aircraft carrier (which has a 
similar power output to a 747, although much more available as electricity). A 
jet or balloon system would be plausible, but would have a beam range of 
perhaps ten of kms (balloons) to hundreds of kms (large jets), necessitating 
potentially millions of platforms to provide global coverage.
I'm neither a satellite engineer, nor a cosmic ray expert - so multi-order 
errors are inevitable in my reasoning. 
Andrew Lockley 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, 09:29 Olivier Boucher,  
wrote:

  
Dear Andrew,
 
as I stated before, I have some doubt about observed relationships between 
cosmic ray and cloudiness and if real, the physics is very unclear. However I 
do not understand your post. If there is such an effect, then why would you 
want to shot these particles downward from space rather than upward from the 
surface. The objective would be to increase low-level cloudiness, wouldn't it ? 
 
 Regards,
 Olivier 
 
 There appears to be some confusion here in terms of the numbers to use. Most 
of the particles are atomic nuclei (overwhelmingly hydrogen). These are 
therefore charged, and thus are substantially attenuated by the earth's 
magnetic field. I've been unable to determine the extent, from a quick Google.  
  Furthermore, a proportion of scattering attenuation occurs in the high 
atmosphere, where it's too dry to produce clouds. It may therefore be more 
effective to use lower-flying aircraft, which are less lossy by this mechanism 
- although they may have very limited beam range. Nevertheless, Google's 
project Loon shows that mass production of non-high

Re: [geo] Re: MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

2018-08-21 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

A 3-5 orders increase of synthetic cosmic rays over background levels?  Am I 
missing something?
Even if technically feasible, what about impact on life on earth?  Birds, 
airliners, marine life... 
Phytoplanktons emit dimethyl sulfide (DMS) which eventually leads to aerosol 
formation and cloud cover.  The CLAW hypothesis postulates this as part of 
planetary homeostasis.  So what would a 3-5 orders increase of cosmic rays do 
to phytoplanktons, and the natural cloud coverage they enable?  And to the 
oxygen that phytoplanktons provide us with?
Even if shooting from below, what's the fate of millions of balloons in the 
atmosphere?  What goes up must come down...  And the footprint of millions of 
jets?  Again, danger to birds and airliners?
Maggie   On Monday, August 20, 2018, 11:23:19 AM GMT+2, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 Thanks for your question, Oliver.
The reason to use a space based system is similar to the approach for earth 
observation satellites - even coverage. A satellite in GS orbit can 'see' 
roughly a third to a half of the world. Because the atmosphere is thin, 
compared to the size of the earth, most beam attenuation is likely to occur in 
the troposphere, where 75pc of the air is. That means a satellite mounted 
system would only have to penetrate a few kms of thick atmosphere, at most.
Crudely, I'm assuming beam range and power scale together. A kW system gives 
you kms, MW gives you thousands of kms. (I said GW in an earlier email, which 
would be the case if you relied on lossy accelerators for high particle energy, 
not high density, as Russell helpfully pointed out.) 
By contrast, a ground-mounted system would have to work over distances 3-4 
orders greater. A ship-based system would be technically viable, but its slow 
speed would inhibit its coverage, quickly reaching local saturation - unless 
you used a high energy beam to reach 1000kms or so. A high-energy system would 
need to be mounted on a ship the scale of an aircraft carrier (which has a 
similar power output to a 747, although much more available as electricity). A 
jet or balloon system would be plausible, but would have a beam range of 
perhaps ten of kms (balloons) to hundreds of kms (large jets), necessitating 
potentially millions of platforms to provide global coverage.
I'm neither a satellite engineer, nor a cosmic ray expert - so multi-order 
errors are inevitable in my reasoning. 
Andrew Lockley 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, 09:29 Olivier Boucher,  
wrote:

  
Dear Andrew,
 
as I stated before, I have some doubt about observed relationships between 
cosmic ray and cloudiness and if real, the physics is very unclear. However I 
do not understand your post. If there is such an effect, then why would you 
want to shot these particles downward from space rather than upward from the 
surface. The objective would be to increase low-level cloudiness, wouldn't it ? 
 
 Regards,
 Olivier 
 
 There appears to be some confusion here in terms of the numbers to use. Most 
of the particles are atomic nuclei (overwhelmingly hydrogen). These are 
therefore charged, and thus are substantially attenuated by the earth's 
magnetic field. I've been unable to determine the extent, from a quick Google.  
  Furthermore, a proportion of scattering attenuation occurs in the high 
atmosphere, where it's too dry to produce clouds. It may therefore be more 
effective to use lower-flying aircraft, which are less lossy by this mechanism 
- although they may have very limited beam range. Nevertheless, Google's 
project Loon shows that mass production of non-high altitude balloons is at 
least worthy of consideration - numbers can potentially overwhelm range 
disadvantages.  
  Finally, there's the issue of energy distribution. I've been unable to find a 
source that links particle energy to cloud CCN. The number peak at 0.3GEv may  
not be representative of an efficacy peak. Certainly, highly energetic 
particles are disproportionately effective, but it's not clear whether their 
numerical rarity makes them irrelevant, overall. There are significant 
technical issues with producing high-energy particles in orbit. Individual 
particles are travelling at near light speed, and they experience significant 
relativistic effects. It therefore requires serious infrastructure to produce 
them. That's  impractical for a satellite. However, intermediate energy 
accelerators could be mounted on 747-type platforms, and full sized 
accelerators could be land based. One problem with very high energy particles 
is that they're *individually* dangerous. The highest energy particles have the 
energy of a baseball travelling at nearly 100kmh. You can't go shooting those 
at airliners. 
  Further thoughts welcome.  
  Andrew   
  On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, 01:55 Russell Seitz,  wrote:
  
 The  grid-to-beam efficiency of  greater than GEV particle accelerators ranges 
from kess than 5 % for high current systems , to as little as  0.02% for 
superconducting colliders like the

[geo] E.coli to capture CO2, convert to formic acid?

2018-01-08 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-01/uod-abs010818.php

"For example, the E. coli bacterium can grow in the complete absence of oxygen. 
When it does this it makes a special metal-containing enzyme, called 'FHL', 
which can interconvert gaseous carbon dioxide with liquid formic acid. This 
could provide an opportunity to capture carbon dioxide into a manageable 
product that is easily stored, controlled or even used to make other things. 
The trouble is, the normal conversion process is slow and sometime 
unreliable."What we have done is develop a process that enables the E. coli 
bacterium to operate as a very efficient biological carbon capture device. When 
the bacteria containing the FHL enzyme are placed under pressurised carbon 
dioxide and hydrogen gas mixtures - up to 10 atmospheres of pressure - then 100 
per cent conversion of the carbon dioxide to formic acid is observed. The 
reaction happens quickly, over a few hours, and at ambient temperatures."This 
could be an important breakthrough in biotechnology. It should be possible to 
optimise the system still further and finally develop a `microbial cell 
factory' that could be used to mop up carbon dioxide from many different types 
of industry.
Maggie

-- 
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.

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

2018-01-08 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

You're right Douglas, that was frivolous of me.  Since Leon was saying we have 
so much educating to do on specialists, giving a magazine quote from her, that 
was factually wrong (which now we know she was erroneously quoted in the 
magazine), I simply speculated that her working at the Colorado School of Mines 
had something to do with it, hence my reluctance to call her a specialist 
without quotes.  But I shouldn't have jumped to conclusion.  My apologies.
Maggie

On Monday, January 8, 2018 2:12 PM, Douglas MacMartin 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv5251686827 #yiv5251686827 -- _filtered #yiv5251686827 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5251686827 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5251686827 {font-family:ff2;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0;} _filtered #yiv5251686827 {font-family:HelveticaNeue;}#yiv5251686827 
#yiv5251686827 p.yiv5251686827MsoNormal, #yiv5251686827 
li.yiv5251686827MsoNormal, #yiv5251686827 div.yiv5251686827MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5251686827 h1 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv5251686827
 a:link, #yiv5251686827 span.yiv5251686827MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5251686827 a:visited, #yiv5251686827 
span.yiv5251686827MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5251686827 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5251686827 
span.yiv5251686827gmail-m1887225823609052034current-selection {}#yiv5251686827 
span.yiv5251686827gmail-m1887225823609052034 {}#yiv5251686827 
span.yiv5251686827Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv5251686827 
span.yiv5251686827EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5251686827 
.yiv5251686827MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5251686827 
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5251686827 div.yiv5251686827WordSection1 
{}#yiv5251686827 Actually it’s much simpler than that.  Most of the people 
running IAMs don’t have DAC in their models at all, or if they do, at a price 
that would lead to it’s being used.  Don’t forget that the current set of 
publications pointing out the problems with BECCS are essentially criticizing 
IAM simulations from 5-10 years ago.  I suspect that there’s a lot more 
research dollars going into DAC than into BECCS (insofar as I’m not aware of 
anyone funding the latter).    And please don’t insult people that you don’t 
know.  Jennifer is a wonderful and very intelligent and competent and 
knowledgeable person.  If you were responding directly to her, that sort of 
unnecessary ad hominem attack of putting “specialist” in quotes should get you 
blocked from posting to these groups.  Would you have insulted her if she was 
still at Stanford?  Would you be willing to insult her to her face?  d  From: 
'Maggie Zhou' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
[mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 2:27 AM
To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; len2...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 

Subject: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and 
grazing on global vegetation biomass.  Responsing to Peter Eisenberger's 
question as to why the obvious necessity of DAC, and the superiority of DAC 
over BECCS has been so long obfuscated (and continues to be), I point to the 
obvious link of BECCS to the coal industry - as I understand it, biomass is 
expected to be only part of the feedstock in BECCS, the rest is fossil fuel.  I 
note that this "specialist" Jennifer Wilcox for example, whom Leon quoted with 
frustration, is of Colorado School of Mines.  Generally, if you look at all the 
"climate solutions" that have received prominent attention by congress and the 
large, foundation funded NGO groups that lobbied intensively for them, they're 
all pseudo solutions peddled to profit some industry or other.  The much better 
alternatives that have been ignored are the ones that benefits the climate, the 
planet, but not some industry waiting to make a big buck.  Cap-and-trade 
(profiting Wall Street traders among others) vs. carbon tax is one such 
example.  Maggie  On Friday, January 5, 2018 4:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger 
 wrote:  Leon  I really appreciate your statement 
and would like your and others views why these straighforward truths are having 
so much difficulty being adopted. I feel helpless watching us waste valuable 
time and knowing the risk of severe consequences for our children caused by our 
delay. What will our children say about the scientific community that knew or 
should have known better to avoid the destruction. Will there fairly or 
unfairly be trials for experts who misinformed the institutions that rely on 
them . As I have written before I wish I was not involved in DAC so that I 
could effectively argue for its important (necessary ) role in our response.  
To soften

Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

2018-01-06 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Replying to Veli, cutting down trees in northern forests and throwing them 
under northern lakes wouldn't be a good solution, as logging operations are 
consistently shown to severely compact forest soil, reduce its ability to 
retain water and perform other ecosystem services, damage biodiversity, causing 
loss in soil biomass and soil carbon content.
Further, with the warming of the northern regions, decay in lakes and in 
permafrost are accelerating.
Meanwhile, the logged forests don't grow back for decades, and with every 
logging some nutrients are lost.
Maggie 

On Saturday, January 6, 2018 3:44 PM, Veli Albert Kallio 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv8558977635 #yiv8558977635 -- P 
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv8558977635 Several years back I pointed to 
the geoengineering group that the problem of using biomass as a fuel is that 
when it is used as a fuel, CO2 returns back into air. The recent studies have 
confirmed my then suspicions that "0", or carbon-neutral biomass production 
could be a potential no-no because it does not (actually) retrieve carbon at 
all if all biomass produced is taken to the incinerators that then pour it back 
as CO2. The discovery of managed forests containing 1/3 less biomass than a 
natural forest just confirms these doubts of the then-great idea of the day. 
I come from subarctic region that is principally a global belt of coniferous 
forests with an occasional mixture of broad leaf trees like birches. Back then, 
I discussed this issue with Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, FRS, who suggested 
planting birch forests as these have white tree bard, do not have evergreen 
leaves to trap the strong springtime sunlight (allowing the deck of snow on the 
ground to act as sunlight reflector to keep air cooler for longer). I had 
suggested him for planting gardener's varieties of modified trees and bushes 
that have white colored leaves to plant these over wide areas to send back 
sunlight, but he suggested back use of birch species instead (there are a few 
varieties of them with all having white colored tree trunks and large branches).
As a part of these discussions I countered the idea from the Finnish forest 
industry which regularly cuts and re-plants forests that if we cut the trees 
down and placed the tree trunks and wooden parts in the innumerable lakes and 
bogs, the carbon would be locked away nearly infinitely in practical terms. 
(There are immersed forests that date back to the ice ages along the coasts 
with still large tree trunks to be found in many places.) The biggest problem 
with removal of natural forests and throwing recovered wood mass into lakes, is 
the potential loss of natural biodiversity. 
The Finnish paper mills only plant trees that are used for paper making this 
leads to huge mono-cultures of tree plants with a minimal biological variety. 
However, in carbon harvesting forests, the trees could be of any variety, 
natural variety, or variety that is the fastest growing for the intended 
purposes. For example, in Finland there are 183,700 lakes that are over 200 
meters wide. Canada has over million lakes and I wonder if anyone has counted 
them as accurately as we Finns do.So the energy for transportation would not be 
great. In Siberia riversides could be barbered and the wood sent to the Arctic 
Ocean to sink. Such reservoirs to store carbon are infinite for all practical 
intents and purposes.
The best equipment for dumping the forest to the lakes are ones the Finnish 
forestry industry uses due to high efficiency and little manpower usage 
requirement. The efficiency can also be boosted by competitions who can level 
largest amount of forest in a day. A fairly small team can level 20 hectares of 
forest in a single day - which is an immense carbon tonnage if it is thrown 
into a lake or water filled bog. I believe that using some of the largest 
equipment we can get 40-50 hectares or 1/2 square kilometer leveled in a single 
day if the cut speed is given the highest priority to maximize it. Choosing the 
nearest lake where logs can be dropped is of utmost importance to carry on as 
fast as we can.
Finland's eastern neighbor, Russia, has 45 times more forest than we do 
although we are pretty well covered at any given time. Once the trees are cut, 
a new saplings are to be planted as soon as possible to make the same area 
ready for the next cut in due course of time. The forest can be fertilized to 
speed up growth and after many repetitive cuts. The combinations of SRM (white 
leaf trees) and CDR (log burial in lakes) across the coniferous northern 
forests can be highly effective to reduce atmospheric carbon load. The rest of 
forest wastes can also be turned into biochar. 
Besides forestry, agricultural biomass waste conversion (straws, animal 
carcasses, rot vegetables and fruit) should also be used to remove large 
amounts of carbon annually from the air. If all world's agricultural biomass 
waste was converted to

Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

2018-01-06 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Responsing to Peter Eisenberger's question as to why the obvious necessity of 
DAC, and the superiority of DAC over BECCS has been so long obfuscated (and 
continues to be), I point to the obvious link of BECCS to the coal industry - 
as I understand it, biomass is expected to be only part of the feedstock in 
BECCS, the rest is fossil fuel.
I note that this "specialist" Jennifer Wilcox for example, whom Leon quoted 
with frustration, is of Colorado School of Mines.
Generally, if you look at all the "climate solutions" that have received 
prominent attention by congress and the large, foundation funded NGO groups 
that lobbied intensively for them, they're all pseudo solutions peddled to 
profit some industry or other.  The much better alternatives that have been 
ignored are the ones that benefits the climate, the planet, but not some 
industry waiting to make a big buck.  Cap-and-trade (profiting Wall Street 
traders among others) vs. carbon tax is one such example.
Maggie

On Friday, January 5, 2018 4:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger 
 wrote:
 

 Leon  I really appreciate your statement and would like your and others views 
why these straighforward truths are having so much difficulty being adopted. I 
feel helpless watching us waste valuable time and knowing the risk of severe 
consequences for our children caused by our delay. What will our children say 
about the scientific community that knew or should have known better to avoid 
the destruction. Will there fairly or unfairly be trials for experts who 
misinformed the institutions that rely on them . As I have written before I 
wish I was not involved in DAC so that I could effectively argue for its 
important (necessary ) role in our response.  To soften this depressing view it 
is true that CDR is gaining markedly increased support and there are an 
increasing group of people like you who have made a sound analysis and 
recognize the need for DAC and its ability to be affordable. I must also admit 
to some discomfort as a scientist to making such definitive statements on a 
subject of this complexity.  But I feel justified because  I have taught a 
course at Columbia for over 10 years on Closing the Carbon Cycle . In preparing 
the course the need for CDR (then called negative carbon) became very clear 
even in 2009 -see attached paper. It is that analysis, which infact 
underestimates the oveshoot and need for CDR ,  that led me to attempt to 
develop a DAC technology.     
In spite of these intense feelings Iam not interested in recriminations and 
blame but rather can our understanding of the failure to date to communicate 
the need for DAC help us develop an approach that will get our planet on a 
scientifically defensible path for addressing the climate change threat . The 
National Academy study is one such opportunity, the Pacala statement is 
welcomed ,   as are as you mention upcoming meetings. The Virgin Prize is a 
potential opportunity but it has yet to be shown that their experts are 
different than those in the APS study or IPCC.  Some have suggested to me in 
hearing my concern that we should go directly to the young people and try and 
create pressure from the people because of the apparent failure of the 
scientific establishment to provide effective leadership. . 
I am open to all suggestions and will commit personal effort to ideas that 
might be effective.  Just remember if those who have the capacity to understand 
do not act nothing will happen and the one thing we do not have is time to 
waste.  .     

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Leon Di Marco  wrote:

There has been a disappointing tendency in climate modelling to use BECCS as 
the stand alone carbon dioxide removal method with which to address cumulative 
emissions targets, with only lip service being given to DAC.   This has been 
justified by authors because BECCS is supposedly a known quantity, despite its 
manifest problems at scale.  Reference to the discredited APS study on DAC and 
out of date numbers for the purportedly unmanageable amount of energy required 
to power DAC at scale still abound, ignoring the vast supply of renewable 
thermal energy available from insolation for example in deserts.   
It has taken years to shake off the damning effect of the APS study and the 
very belated new NAS committee on CDR Research chaired by Steve Pacala  has 
already declared that the APS results were wrong   (online video for NAS Irvine 
CA workshop on DAC, 24 Oct 2017    https://livestream.com/ 
accounts/15221519/events/ 7703271).  
One of the APS report authors (who also sits on the new NAS CDR committee), 
came out with this quite astonishing erroneous quote about DAC energy on 
Environment Research web only last November which shows that there is still a 
big job to be done on educating specialists  about their public comments on 
DAC-http:// environmentalresearchweb.org/ cws/article/news/70412
"Energetically, it is

Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

2017-12-29 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Peter wrote: "What we can do is impose on the natural system human control that 
will provide feedbacks that  will prevent the destructive feedbacks from 
growing . This managing the planet approach has few supporters .."
There's still so much about the earth system that we don't understand, it's 
truly arrogant to say we can just "impose human control", and "manage the 
planet".
That said, of course the best and safest approach is to remove the added GHGs 
from the atmosphere (and perhaps also oceans) directly, as quickly as we could, 
and put it somewhere as safe as imaginable.
That does not mean "natural solutions" are not useful - organic agriculture is 
a far better solution to feeding the world's population than industrial 
agriculture, as Dave pointed out.  It's just not the solution to remove the 
massive amount of CO2 we've put out, or to solve global warming.
>From the ETC Group's Irreverent Year in 
>Review:http://etcgroup.org/content/2017-year-bits-bots-and-blockchains'Who 
>Will Feed Us demonstrates that most of the food (at least 70%) that keeps 
>humankind alive comes from the peasant networks that include small scale 
>farmers but also urban gardeners, non-industrial fishermen and forest 
>dwellers. These networks use less than 30% of agricultural resources. The 
>report also talks about the huge damage caused by the industrial food chain in 
>terms of environmental and human health destruction, depletion of water, 
>emissions of greenhouse gases, loss of vegetable and animal diversity, loss of 
>cultures and erosion of human rights. The solution is to support Food 
>Sovereignty and dismantle the Chain – talk about 2018 New Year's Resolutions!'
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had come to similar conclusions 
in their reports over the years as well.

Maggie

On Friday, December 29, 2017 6:10 PM, Peter Eisenberger 
 wrote:

 This further supports my contention that any solution to the excess carbon in 
the airthat Involves using a natural process to either remove it or store it 
will  be found to have consequences when practiced at the global scale that 
will make them ineffective at best A plausibility argument for this assertion 
is that humans have disturbed the planet which is a complex system in the 
physics sense and thus the human disturbance has feedback type impacts that 
cannot be addressed by natural system without the danger of putting us in anew 
earth human system that could be catastrophic for us and the rest of life What 
we can do is impose on the natural system human control that will provide 
feedbacks that  will prevent the destructive feedbacks from growing . This 
managing the planet approach has few supporters and is contrary to the 
historical roots of our concern about the environment which made us humans the 
bad guys and reducing our footprint the solution. 
I think it is becoming clear that reducing the footprint of 9 million members 
of a dominant species is not a feasible task .  But there are still major 
efforts to use natural solutions with Organic farming being the poster child - 
great to  make some people feel good but cannot feed 9 billion people which 
will require industrial scale agriculture 
For the carbon in the air problem this type thinking led me to conclude that we 
needed to take control of the carbon cycle industrially and industrially adjust 
how much we sequester in our human created  materials so to fix the co2 
concentration in the air with our human controlled feedback . A human 
controlled path is DAC for removal and in human materials such as concrete and 
carbon fiber for storage This can clearly stabilize the co2 concentration at a 
level of out choosing since both processes can  be shown to scale  . My point 
for this discussion is not to advocate for DAC but rather that what makes DAC 
different than SRM is fundamental and that SRM type solutions as well as their 
polar opposite so called natural solutions will in the end not address the 
problem and will be challenged to show that in buying time that they do not 
make things worse. Also for different reasons they are preventing us from 
reaching the inevitable conclusion that industrial controlled co2 removal and 
storage is the preferred path to address the threat of catastrophic climate 
change The longer we take for that view to be adopted the greater the risk that 
we will fail 
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 27, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:

https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/fighting-climate-change-with-bioenergy-may-do-more-harm-than-good/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Fighting climate change with bioenergy may do ‘more harm than good’
Morgan Erickson-Davis 14 hours agoAs nations try to stem emissions to keep the 
world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius in line with their commitments 
towards the Paris Accord, replacing fossil fuels with renewable alternatives is 
widely seen as

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

2017-11-24 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

One more thing: If we want to get many conservatives to seriously consider 
man-made climate change as real, we also need to seriously consider that what 
they've been telling us about Chemtrails, at least some of it, may be real.
Until we resolve their mistrust in climate science, nothing by way of climate 
action will happen in US politics.
The current situation is deliberately cultivated such that both sides know some 
of the truth, but neither side can see the truth on the other side.  We've been 
divided and played left and right.
Maggie * As always, if any webpage has 
disappeared from the internet, look up in the following archiving sites to see 
if someone has saved a copy.  Likewise, when you encounter something likely to 
be "disappeared" in the future, make sure to archive it in (all) these sites, 
too .  Donate to these sites to ensure their 
existence!http://peeep.us/http://archive.is/https://archive.org/http://webcitation.org/queryhttp://hiyo.jp/http://megalodon.jp/Maggie
 Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543Twitter: 
@mzhou_usmzhou...@yahoo.com+41 61 535 0508 (Switzerland, landline)Skype: 
mzhou_us 

On Friday, November 24, 2017 3:52 PM, Maggie Zhou  
wrote:
 

 But at least with Yahoo mail, spams are sent to Spam mailbox and stored for a 
set period of time before being deleted, which is not the case with these 
emails.  They really disappeared immediately.
Facebook also blatantly deleted some of my posts, e.g., one on the well 
researched article by former Guardian reporter Nafeez Ahmed, about How the CIA 
Made Google:https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543/posts/1134176079964913Or 
Why Google Made the 
NSA:https://www.facebook.com/groups/134494750049692/permalink/464190120413485/Or
 this:https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543/posts/1343670499015469

One more thing I want to mention - not to cause undue distress to list members, 
but - it is in fact possible that, should a mass shooting actually happens at a 
geoengineering conference for example, by a supposed "lone gunman" no doubt, it 
could immediately be used to pass pre-prepared laws to officially ban all 
"conspiracy theory" websites on the internet and in print, and arrest anyone 
who doesn't immediately take down their existing posts in mandated time.  We're 
already more than halfway there on this Orwellian path.
Maggie


On Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:09 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 Emails get spam-trapped all the time. It doesn't mean that there's a global 
conspiracy by the military industrial complex
A
On 23 Nov 2017 18:32, "Maggie Zhou"  wrote:

Hi all,
I don't have the energy to go into details right now, but I feel necessary to 
alert you all to the following, and urge you to do your own research on this.
I believe scientists on this list are genuinely interested in geoengineering as 
a way to combat the effects of global warming, and that they haven't yet really 
started carrying out the spraying they've been proposing, although tests are 
planned for very soon.
It's unfortunate that the word "geoengineering" has been confusingly applied to 
what's behind chemtrails, leading scientists in the genuine field of SRM to be 
a sort of escape goat for public fury over chemtrails.

I've done extensive research on the topic of "chemtrails", and definitely found 
credible evidence (including govt documents dating back many decades but also 
current ones, talking about "weather as a weapon", "dominating through weather 
control", etc.; military whistleblower accounts; undeniable video footage of 
(colored) chemicals being sprayed from high altitude - i.e., not crop dusting; 
testimonies at city council meetings by various scientists showing the results 
of their tests of samples they took themselves, and of the extremely abnormal 
changes they observed in the chemical composition in the environment as 
wildlife scientists, over a very short period of time which they say could only 
be attributed to the areal spraying in those areas).  There are too many lines 
of evidence for this all to be dismissed.
Chemtrail spraying has been done the most in western states such as CA, esp. 
near military bases.  I think some of them may have to do with weapons testing, 
besides weather manipulation (not cooling the planet though).
When I was working as a research scientist (molecular biology, then 
bioinformatics) I was completely enclosed in my own bubble of scientific 
fields.  Only later did I discover the existence of a vast range of covert 
military research and operations.
Bear also in mind that death threats could be sent by trolls, even the 
mainstream media has exposed on the record how the US military and the 
intelligence agencies employ a vast army of online trolls to control the 
narrative they care about, each such personnel uses 10 different online

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

2017-11-24 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

But at least with Yahoo mail, spams are sent to Spam mailbox and stored for a 
set period of time before being deleted, which is not the case with these 
emails.  They really disappeared immediately.
Facebook also blatantly deleted some of my posts, e.g., one on the well 
researched article by former Guardian reporter Nafeez Ahmed, about How the CIA 
Made Google:https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543/posts/1134176079964913Or 
Why Google Made the 
NSA:https://www.facebook.com/groups/134494750049692/permalink/464190120413485/Or
 this:https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543/posts/1343670499015469

One more thing I want to mention - not to cause undue distress to list members, 
but - it is in fact possible that, should a mass shooting actually happens at a 
geoengineering conference for example, by a supposed "lone gunman" no doubt, it 
could immediately be used to pass pre-prepared laws to officially ban all 
"conspiracy theory" websites on the internet and in print, and arrest anyone 
who doesn't immediately take down their existing posts in mandated time.  We're 
already more than halfway there on this Orwellian path.
Maggie


On Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:09 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 Emails get spam-trapped all the time. It doesn't mean that there's a global 
conspiracy by the military industrial complex
A
On 23 Nov 2017 18:32, "Maggie Zhou"  wrote:

Hi all,
I don't have the energy to go into details right now, but I feel necessary to 
alert you all to the following, and urge you to do your own research on this.
I believe scientists on this list are genuinely interested in geoengineering as 
a way to combat the effects of global warming, and that they haven't yet really 
started carrying out the spraying they've been proposing, although tests are 
planned for very soon.
It's unfortunate that the word "geoengineering" has been confusingly applied to 
what's behind chemtrails, leading scientists in the genuine field of SRM to be 
a sort of escape goat for public fury over chemtrails.

I've done extensive research on the topic of "chemtrails", and definitely found 
credible evidence (including govt documents dating back many decades but also 
current ones, talking about "weather as a weapon", "dominating through weather 
control", etc.; military whistleblower accounts; undeniable video footage of 
(colored) chemicals being sprayed from high altitude - i.e., not crop dusting; 
testimonies at city council meetings by various scientists showing the results 
of their tests of samples they took themselves, and of the extremely abnormal 
changes they observed in the chemical composition in the environment as 
wildlife scientists, over a very short period of time which they say could only 
be attributed to the areal spraying in those areas).  There are too many lines 
of evidence for this all to be dismissed.
Chemtrail spraying has been done the most in western states such as CA, esp. 
near military bases.  I think some of them may have to do with weapons testing, 
besides weather manipulation (not cooling the planet though).
When I was working as a research scientist (molecular biology, then 
bioinformatics) I was completely enclosed in my own bubble of scientific 
fields.  Only later did I discover the existence of a vast range of covert 
military research and operations.
Bear also in mind that death threats could be sent by trolls, even the 
mainstream media has exposed on the record how the US military and the 
intelligence agencies employ a vast army of online trolls to control the 
narrative they care about, each such personnel uses 10 different online 
identity at any given time.
Email communications could also be interfered with and manipulated.  I've 
experienced it personally.  On quite a few occasions, e.g., I was able to 
confirm that emails sent to or from me have disappeared in transit, i.e., they 
did not reach the recipient's inbox or spam mailbox.  I've been researching and 
informing about the immoral actions of the Deep State in areas of wars, 
weapons, etc.
So whenever possible, communicate important things by phone.
I urge you all to not dismiss this whole thing as crackpot material.  Keep in 
mind though, that if you search in Google, you'll get results based on Google's 
classification of what type of things you usually read - i.e., you'll probably 
get as top hits sites that dismiss chemtrails.  Try starting in Youtube and 
search with specific words based on some of the things I mentioned above.
Best,Maggie




On Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:04 PM, David Sevier 
 wrote:
 

 Yet another piece of living evidence that the IQ curve predicts that 40% of 
the population will have an IQ of 90 or less.   Happy Turkey day to our US 
cousins.   Dave   From: geoengineering@googlegroups. com 
[mailto:geoengineering@ googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 22 November 2017 23:13
To:

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

2017-11-23 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Hi all,
I don't have the energy to go into details right now, but I feel necessary to 
alert you all to the following, and urge you to do your own research on this.
I believe scientists on this list are genuinely interested in geoengineering as 
a way to combat the effects of global warming, and that they haven't yet really 
started carrying out the spraying they've been proposing, although tests are 
planned for very soon.
It's unfortunate that the word "geoengineering" has been confusingly applied to 
what's behind chemtrails, leading scientists in the genuine field of SRM to be 
a sort of escape goat for public fury over chemtrails.

I've done extensive research on the topic of "chemtrails", and definitely found 
credible evidence (including govt documents dating back many decades but also 
current ones, talking about "weather as a weapon", "dominating through weather 
control", etc.; military whistleblower accounts; undeniable video footage of 
(colored) chemicals being sprayed from high altitude - i.e., not crop dusting; 
testimonies at city council meetings by various scientists showing the results 
of their tests of samples they took themselves, and of the extremely abnormal 
changes they observed in the chemical composition in the environment as 
wildlife scientists, over a very short period of time which they say could only 
be attributed to the areal spraying in those areas).  There are too many lines 
of evidence for this all to be dismissed.
Chemtrail spraying has been done the most in western states such as CA, esp. 
near military bases.  I think some of them may have to do with weapons testing, 
besides weather manipulation (not cooling the planet though).
When I was working as a research scientist (molecular biology, then 
bioinformatics) I was completely enclosed in my own bubble of scientific 
fields.  Only later did I discover the existence of a vast range of covert 
military research and operations.
Bear also in mind that death threats could be sent by trolls, even the 
mainstream media has exposed on the record how the US military and the 
intelligence agencies employ a vast army of online trolls to control the 
narrative they care about, each such personnel uses 10 different online 
identity at any given time.
Email communications could also be interfered with and manipulated.  I've 
experienced it personally.  On quite a few occasions, e.g., I was able to 
confirm that emails sent to or from me have disappeared in transit, i.e., they 
did not reach the recipient's inbox or spam mailbox.  I've been researching and 
informing about the immoral actions of the Deep State in areas of wars, 
weapons, etc.
So whenever possible, communicate important things by phone.
I urge you all to not dismiss this whole thing as crackpot material.  Keep in 
mind though, that if you search in Google, you'll get results based on Google's 
classification of what type of things you usually read - i.e., you'll probably 
get as top hits sites that dismiss chemtrails.  Try starting in Youtube and 
search with specific words based on some of the things I mentioned above.
Best,Maggie




On Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:04 PM, David Sevier 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv0508377249 #yiv0508377249 -- _filtered #yiv0508377249 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0508377249 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv0508377249 
#yiv0508377249 p.yiv0508377249MsoNormal, #yiv0508377249 
li.yiv0508377249MsoNormal, #yiv0508377249 div.yiv0508377249MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0508377249 h1 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv0508377249
 h2 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv0508377249
 h4 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv0508377249
 a:link, #yiv0508377249 span.yiv0508377249MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0508377249 a:visited, #yiv0508377249 
span.yiv0508377249MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0508377249 p 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0508377249 
span.yiv0508377249Heading2Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv0508377249 
span.yiv0508377249Heading1Char {color:#365F91;font-weight:bold;}#yiv0508377249 
span.yiv0508377249Heading4Char 
{color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;}#yiv0508377249 
span.yiv0508377249EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0508377249 
.yiv0508377249MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0508377249 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv0508377249 div.yiv0508377249WordSection1 {}#yiv0508377249 
Yet another piece of living evidence that the IQ curve predicts that 40% of the 
population will have an IQ of 90 or less.   Happy Turkey day to our US cousins. 
  Dave   From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 22 November 2017 23:13

Re: [geo] modification to cloud whitening process

2017-11-15 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

David, I do understand that you're talking about a modification to MCB to 
addresses the nutrient dispersion question, and not about iron fertilization, 
but the concern is exactly the same, namely, the ocean ecosystem is vastly 
complex, to understand the implications of any artificial manipulation to it 
requires thorough understanding of its complexity.  Small trials will be 
limited by its local (physical and temporal) conditions and destined to yield 
incomplete understanding, while large trials are simply too risky and 
irreversible.  It's the same problem with aerosol spraying with planes (which 
of course has the additional problem that it just masks the warming without 
addressing the GHG excess problem).
Maggie

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:01 AM, David Sevier 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv8622244226 #yiv8622244226 -- _filtered #yiv8622244226 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8622244226 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8622244226 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8622244226 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv8622244226 
#yiv8622244226 p.yiv8622244226MsoNormal, #yiv8622244226 
li.yiv8622244226MsoNormal, #yiv8622244226 div.yiv8622244226MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8622244226 a:link, 
#yiv8622244226 span.yiv8622244226MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8622244226 a:visited, #yiv8622244226 
span.yiv8622244226MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8622244226 span {}#yiv8622244226 
span.yiv8622244226EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8622244226 
.yiv8622244226MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv8622244226 
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv8622244226 
div.yiv8622244226WordSection1 {}#yiv8622244226 Maggie,  Please note I am not 
seeking to open the discussion about the effectiveness of ocean fertilization 
for carbon capture at this time. I am only saying that the modification that I 
have outlined addresses the nutrient dispersion question.  Only a series of 
tests and follow up studies under a number of conditions will settle the 
question of whether ocean fertilization is effective at capturing and 
sequestering CO2 from the air. Debate before this is done properly is like 
arguing  about how many angels can dance on the top of a pin. Only hard data in 
a number of environments and conditions will settle this.  Dave   From: Maggie 
Zhou [mailto:mzhou...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: 13 November 2017 20:18
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; David Sevier
Cc: Stephen Salter; geoengineering; Stuart Haszeldine
Subject: Re: [geo] modification to cloud whitening process  Also, adding 
nutrients doesn't just lead to the hoped-for phytoplankton growth.  In a 
previously reported ocean iron fertilization experiment, that growth quickly 
lead to a boom of some marine arthropods, instead of the hoped-for deposition 
of dead planktons to the ocean floor as detritus.  But even if such detritus 
successfully sinks as "marine snow", it will still increase the oxygen 
depletion beneath the region of the algal bloom, as a significant fraction of 
the detritus is devoured by bacteria, other microorganisms and deep sea animals 
that also consume oxygen.  All this further exacerbates ocean anoxia that's 
already affecting huge areas of the world's oceans.  Maggie  
Maggie Zhou, 
PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543Twitter: 
@mzhou_usmzhou...@yahoo.com+41 61 535 0508 (Switzerland, landline)Skype: 
mzhou_us  On Monday, November 13, 2017 8:16 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  The materials volumes of the sprays are very 
small and the concentrations needed to effect biological changes may 
substantially impact droplet formation and CCN properties  A  On 13 Nov 2017 
19:01, "David Sevier"  wrote:I have been 
considering how the base technology (the equipment that sprays the salt water 
to whiten the clouds) that underpins Dr Salter’s cloud whitening 
geo-engineering could be used in different and new ways.  I believe that I have 
hit upon a modification to the base technology that may prove to be quite 
important and very useful. Proposed Modification to Cloud Whitening Into the 
intake line feeding the spray equipment (this is the low pressure side),  
inject either dissolved solutions / fine suspensions of key marine nutrients 
such as iron, phosphate and silicate that limit growth in the top few 
centimetres of the ocean surface away from the continental shelves. The 
nutrients will be delivered to the clouds and will later fall as rain and 
deliver the dilute (i.e. the level that micro plants require) nutrients to the 
ocean surface.  The proposed method avoids delivering nutrients in high 
concentration from a dragged point and then requiring currents and waves to 
disperse

Re: [geo] modification to cloud whitening process

2017-11-13 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Also, adding nutrients doesn't just lead to the hoped-for phytoplankton growth. 
 In a previously reported ocean iron fertilization experiment, that growth 
quickly lead to a boom of some marine arthropods, instead of the hoped-for 
deposition of dead planktons to the ocean floor as detritus.
But even if such detritus successfully sinks as "marine snow", it will still 
increase the oxygen depletion beneath the region of the algal bloom, as a 
significant fraction of the detritus is devoured by bacteria, other 
microorganisms and deep sea animals that also consume oxygen.  All this further 
exacerbates ocean anoxia that's already affecting huge areas of the world's 
oceans.
Maggie
Maggie Zhou, 
PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543Twitter: 
@mzhou_usmzhou...@yahoo.com+41 61 535 0508 (Switzerland, landline)Skype: 
mzhou_us 

On Monday, November 13, 2017 8:16 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 The materials volumes of the sprays are very small and the concentrations 
needed to effect biological changes may substantially impact droplet formation 
and CCN properties
A
On 13 Nov 2017 19:01, "David Sevier"  wrote:

I have been considering how the base technology (the equipment that sprays the 
salt water to whiten the clouds) that underpins Dr Salter’s cloud whitening 
geo-engineering could be used in different and new ways.  I believe that I have 
hit upon a modification to the base technology that may prove to be quite 
important and very useful. Proposed Modification to Cloud Whitening Into the 
intake line feeding the spray equipment (this is the low pressure side),  
inject either dissolved solutions / fine suspensions of key marine nutrients 
such as iron, phosphate and silicate that limit growth in the top few 
centimetres of the ocean surface away from the continental shelves. The 
nutrients will be delivered to the clouds and will later fall as rain and 
deliver the dilute (i.e. the level that micro plants require) nutrients to the 
ocean surface.  The proposed method avoids delivering nutrients in high 
concentration from a dragged point and then requiring currents and waves to 
disperse nutrients.  The proposed method, because it uses wind, rain and 
weather, will deliver nutrients across wide areas of ocean surface. In essence 
I am suggesting converting the equipment for cloud whitening into a very 
efficient method for delivering marine nutrients across wide areas that will be 
significantly better than alternative methods. This solution directly address 
the problem of spreading marine nutrients that if often cited as a drawback in 
reference to ocean fertilization  The modification should be relatively 
inexpensive and simple to make as it is little more than using a low pressure 
pump to continuously inject into a flowing line.  Potential 
AdvantagesRelatively few spray assemblies should be able fertilize very large 
areas of ocean.  Land based installations (which will cost less to build and 
operate) on remote islands such as Easter Island will be able to deliver 
nutrients to large areas of ocean. Overall the ability to deliver nutrients 
across wide areas of the ocean surface for low cost and with reduced logistic 
problems should improve the opportunities for ocean fertilization.  Some 
DiscussionThe modification of cloud whitening as I have outlined, blurs the 
lines between solar radiation management and enhanced direct carbon capture. It 
is both and should improve the interest in and need to further develop Dr 
Salter’s cloud whitening technology. One further point that seems worth of 
mention: many of the ocean ecosystems are near collapse due to overfishing 
driven by the rising world population. This is a large problem that urgently 
needs a solution. It is likely that increasing the deep ocean surface water 
productivity by fertilization will lead to greater fish stocks in the areas 
where fishing tends to be poor at present. Potentially this may give a much 
needed safety valve to overfished areas and allow these areas to recover. Some 
I expect will cite increased fish stocks in areas that are nutrient poor as 
changing ecosystems and hold this as a reason for not considering ocean 
fertilization. I would point out that we are already very severely modifying 
coastal ecosystems by overfishing. Reversing this by increasing deep water fish 
stocks is the better option. Ultimately the world population has to be fed.  
David SevierCarbon Cycle Limited248 Sutton Common RoadSutton, Surrey SM3 
9PWEnglandTel 44 (0)208 288 0128Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129www.carbon-cycle.co.uk  
This email is private and confidential  -- 
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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to

Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

2017-06-04 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

My guess would be that they're monitoring geoengineering research because they 
can't distinguish it from chemtrails spraying, which I think is military 
related spraying in the sky that at some level sounds a lot like aerosol 
spraying in SRM.  Many citizens are extremely concerned (and rightly so!) with 
the health and environmental effects of chemtrail spraying, hence the watchdog 
group monitoring anything and everything they could find related to it.
If a simple keyword in your publication automatically triggered some monitoring 
by their method, then it's not surprising you got onto their watch list.
Maggie

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 12:18 PM, Veli Albert Kallio 
 wrote:
 

  
| 
| 
| Veli Albert Kallio has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the 
link below. |

 |
| 
|  | Geoengineering Watch Monitoring.pdf |  |

 |

 |

Dear Sirs,
RE: Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers

Although I am just a very peripheral player in geoengineering research, and 
that I have hardly published anything on this particular field, and that it is 
just only couple of times I have posted into this geoengineering group (i.e. 
can you yourself recall me making posts in this group, perhaps ever?). Despite 
all the above it appears that an extensive monitoring operations about my 
communications and publications are now being carried out byGeoengineering 
Watch group - shown here by Academia.edu analysis website: see .pdf of web 
traffic analysis of my site.
 
It was a virtually unrelated article about melting Arctic that related to the 
evidence I was giving at the Houses of Parliament here in the UK, this April 
for Sea Research Society. If you read through 47 pages of my evidence I gave, 
you will come across just one solitary reference, a word 'geoengineering' 
research therein. Nevertheless, this one solitary reference to 'geoengineering 
research' in my Parliament evidence has drawn over dozen geoengineering queries 
byGeoengineering Watch group - an astounding achievement by them in monitoring 
me: 
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
 
|  | MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 
2017.docxwww.academia.eduThe draft paper as at 24th April which is being 
amended as the draft for the oral presentation session 5th April 2017 does not 
contain any references and text errors needed corrections. The paper is still 
being worked on with more sections being |

I deliberate here on the possible motivations of "reasons why" and backers of 
those people who so activelymonitor geoengineering researchers that their radar 
captures even mosquitoes like me (unless I have unknowingly become something of 
a geoengineering research giant without really noticing what I had invented)!!!
So what are the 'reasons why' and the backers of those people who are 
attempting to monitor geoengineering researchers and gather information about 
anything and everything even as small as just one solitary word reference to 
geoengineering in a fairly long 47-page Parliamentary evidence document? 
Several possibilities and motivations of these people and other similar groups 
are coming to my mind. These kind of extensive monitoring efforts almost 
certainly point to an indirect organised interests and perhaps utilitarian 
purposes to carry out (help) campaigns against geoengineering research and so 
to monitor the researchers meticulously.

My foremost thought here is that the very idea of someone researching or citing 
about geoengineering - even briefly - implies (indirectly) that there would be 
an evidence about changing climate which then justifies an investment in such a 
research (that threatens the interests of the patrons of the campaigns against 
geoengineering research). So, if geoengineering research can be refuted 
(killed), it means that there is also neither climate change and so no need to 
mitigate any such a climate change. Thus, by killing geoengineering research, 
"the Plan B", this would also kill all argument for any climate change 
happening in the first place.

According to BBC, during his election campaign, Donald Trump stated recently 
that climate change was 'a hoax' and, implicitly reconfirmed this by his 
announcement on Thursday, 1st June 2017, stating that the United States will 
now withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. President Trump has since 
avoided questions on the subject likewise his White House press secretary Sean 
Spicer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40128026
|  | Will Paris pull-out hurt Trump? - BBC Newswww.bbc.co.ukThese are external 
links and will open in a new window In the end the collected pressure from 
environmentalists, diplomats, major US corporations, foreign ... |

I would like to have your reflections what you think about the motivations of 
those who want to stifle geoengineering? Do you think like I am

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

2017-04-28 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

"'US MILITARISM = CLIMATE KILLER"
“SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT FOR PROFIT"
“SCIENCE FOR PEACE, NOT FOR WAR.”

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:23 PM, aryt alasti <aryt.ala...@gmail.com>
wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/big-turnout-expected-for-march-for-science-in-dc/2017/04/21/67cf7f90-237f-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory_term=.873700bdfcde

Aryt
On Apr 22, 2017 4:54 PM, "Dr. Adrian Tuck"
<dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote:

A good one seen in Denver: A picture of the Globe with arrows pointing to it
and the legend "I'M WITH HER'
On 21 April 2017 at 19:02, 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups. com> wrote:

SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE
when PROFITABILITY trumps RATIONALITY, EARTH = the TITANIC

On Friday, April 21, 2017 8:28 PM, Eric Durbrow <durb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here in the US we are having a March for Science tomorrow and March for the
Climate on the 29th. Does anyone have a pithy eye-catching scientifically
accurate slogan to help raise climate awareness? E.g. “0 Emissions Not Enough:
Carbon Capture!” (I’m posting this query here as I would like to elicit ideas
especially from climatologists and engineers…)

--
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+unsubscribe@goo glegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.co m.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
** * 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A
Molecular Dynamics Perspective'.Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN
978-0-19-923653-4.http://www.oup.com/uk/ catalogue/?ci=9780199236534
** *--
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+unsubscribe@ 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.

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

2017-04-21 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE
when PROFITABILITY trumps RATIONALITY, EARTH = the TITANIC

On Friday, April 21, 2017 8:28 PM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:
 

 #yiv7964849358 body{font-family:Helvetica, Arial;font-size:13px;}

Here in the US we are having a March for Science tomorrow and March for the 
Climate on the 29th. Does anyone have a pithy eye-catching scientifically 
accurate slogan to help raise climate awareness? E.g. “0 Emissions Not Enough: 
Carbon Capture!” (I’m posting this query here as I would like to elicit ideas 
especially from climatologists and engineers…)

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Geoengineering by whales

2017-03-24 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

This would appear to be the ocean parallel of how the megafauna on all 
continents were functioning before being driven to extinction by our ancestors 
- including the redistribution of nutrients that are of vital importance to the 
foundation of ecosystems.  See:
https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543/posts/1291711937544659

Maggie

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 2:49 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
 wrote:
 

 Sustainable Human  This five minute video explains how whales transfer iron 
and nitrogen to the ocean surface to increase the fish and krill population in 
a benign form of geoengineering.  We should mimic this activity.

  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
||  
Sustainable Human
 When whales were at their historic populations, before their numbers were 
reduced, it seems that whales might ha...  |   |

  |

  |

 
-- 
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.

[geo] RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LARGE SUNSHADES TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING

2016-12-14 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Hey guys,
If we put a huge number of shades in space, what happens to them after their 
useful life?  Are we as a species planning to litter and lay to waste our next 
sphere of neighborhood, as we did to earth?
With solar wind being extremely punishing, are the materials envisioned for 
such shades even able to withstand for any meaningful amount of time before 
becoming too holy to be useful?
Re: trans-atmospheric tubes as heat transfer systems, it reminds me of the idea 
of vertical marine column mixing to speed up CO2 absorption by the ocean.  The 
latter is a bad idea for multiple reasons, such as disrupting ocean 
stratification and the motor for ocean current circulation, the hastening of 
ocean acidification, and the facilitation of more heat retention by the earth 
system via greater storage in deep ocean.  The point is that the earth system 
is so complex, it's inevitable that perturbations like trans-atmospheric tubes 
would result in more than heat transfer, but also changes in wind patterns, 
precipitation, etc. etc. that will have layers of unintended ripple effects.
Scientists who believe that the situation with global warming is so desperate 
that we need to even consider any of these measures, need to first speak out a 
lot louder, PERSONALLY, to your congresspersons, your state legislator, your 
communities, your neighborhood, your city council/town hall meetings, your 
friends and relatives, and most of all, the media.  Not doing such frantically 
means you don't yet truly think it's desperate enough, and indeed there aren't 
enough scientists shouting from the top of their roofs that what they're 
talking about is far more than some academic belief, or is just convenient for 
getting research grants (believe it or not, lots of skeptics think that's the 
reason).  Public perception and the demand for action will be different if 
scientists are truly scared and act truly scared!

Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543+41 61 535 0508 
(Switzerland, landline)


On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:06 PM, Stephen Salter  
wrote:


Hi AllThe present displacement of spray vessels is 90 tonnes so I think that 
the word 'giant' may not be totally accurate.Unless we are badly wrong about 
the present concentration of condensation nuclei we would need a few hundred 
vessels to offset thermal effects from pre-industrial times and a few thousand 
if we doubled CO2.  It will help if we can cherry pick the best ocean regions 
with day-to-day data on cloud formations and wind speeds.  Steady all-year 
spray from conveniently specified regions may be convenient for comparing the 
results of rival climate models but is not an intelligent way to use flotillas 
of spray vessels.
Inventors should not be allowed to make cost estimates of their beloved 
designs.  However I did supply some information based on indexed-linked  cost 
of Flower class corvettes built for the Royal in quantities in a paper 
published by the Royal Society of Chemistry which I attach.   You need to index 
link from £60,000  in 1940 and then adjust displacement from 1000 tonnes to 90 
tonnes, a waterline of 63 down to 40 and a power from 2000 to 300kW.  If we can 
make spray vessels last for 25 years (like most ships) and allow 10% of capital 
for interest and maintenance we should be able to get the annual cost of 
cooling the present rise to below that of the big climate conferences.  
Compared with some estimates of the cost of future climate change would be 
fairly accurate to say that the cost of marine cloud brightening is within a 
few         percent of zero!
The present research funding for marine cloud brightening is from a private 
source (an old-age pensioner) and is well below that of the ETC group who 
raised $867,606 in 2014.Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel 
+44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube 
Jamie Taylor Power for ChangeOn 14/12/2016 14:15, Robert G Kennedy III, PE 
wrote:

That's two novel thoughts in two days!  (launch tubes, implications of robot/AI 
mfg on terrestrial mfg of geoeng. equipment)  I must thank Mr. Leahy for the 
discourse that his article has stimulated. 

Mr. RICHTER, I'm in Dar es Salaam on a job, so please give me a couple days to 
put together a thoughtful comparative list.  Right off the bat, I say that 
(a) there are so many chained assumptions behind any geoengineering proposal 
that any cost estimate is worthless.  But the field would like to see a figure 
of merit in the form of [ $$ per w*m^-2 ] and [ $$ per w*m^-2 / year ] 
(b) simple self-navigating sunshades at scale are ~5 decades off, give or take 
a decade; adding the power generation and beaming would add maybe a decade, 
assuming the tech devel for both parts started at about the same time. 
(c) Dyson Dots are immediately

Re: [geo] Mechanical Fracturing of Core-Shell Undercooled Metal Particles for Heat-Free Soldering

2016-04-12 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Not sure what the size of the particles will be, but even if they're in the 
range useful for SRM purposes, any smaller nanoparticles that may be present in 
the aerosol could present a potentially huge health hazard, as there is 
evidence that nanoparticles can penetrate the skin barrier, and inhalation 
would probably be particularly hazardous.  Its impact on marine organisms is 
also a concern.
Maggie

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 4:44 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 Posters note: this is a very interesting nanoengineering technique,
that could potentially be used for making solid-shelled sulphate
aerosol particles.  These would be incapable of growing by hygroscopic
attraction of water, and would also allow an inert surface chemistry
to be presented to ozone.  Feedback on whether this has real potential
for geoengineering use would be most welcome.

Mechanical Fracturing of Core-Shell Undercooled Metal Particles for
Heat-Free Soldering

Simge Çınar et al

Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 21864 (2016)
doi:10.1038/srep21864

Metals and alloys
Nanoparticles
23 February 2016

Abstract

Phase-change materials, such as meta-stable undercooled (supercooled)
liquids, have been widely recognized as a suitable route for complex
fabrication and engineering. Despite comprehensive studies on the
undercooling phenomenon, little progress has been made in the use of
undercooled metals, primarily due to low yields and poor stability.
This paper reports the use of an extension of droplet emulsion
technique (SLICE) to produce undercooled core-shell particles of
structure; metal/oxide shell-acetate (‘/’ = physisorbed, ‘-’ =
chemisorbed), from molten Field’s metal (Bi-In-Sn) and Bi-Sn alloys.
These particles exhibit stability against solidification at ambient
conditions. Besides synthesis, we report the use of these undercooled
metal, liquid core-shell, particles for heat free joining and
manufacturing at ambient conditions. Our approach incorporates gentle
etching and/or fracturing of outer oxide-acetate layers through
mechanical stressing or shearing, thus initiating a cascade entailing
fluid flow with concomitant deformation, combination/alloying,
shaping, and solidification. This simple and low cost technique for
soldering and fabrication enables formation of complex shapes and
joining at the meso- and micro-scale at ambient conditions without
heat or electricity.

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] ESD - Abstract - Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica

2016-03-19 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Well this does seem to be one of the less crazy ideas to consider, given its 
potential to delay the submerging of populated coastal cities and 
industrial/toxic sites worldwide - of course stopping emissions is the most 
urgent action of all.

Here are a few additional potential concerns that comes to mind about such an 
approach, besides the obvious fact that they're only looking at compensating 
for the rate of sea level rise that is currently observed, while the future 
predicted rise will be faster and accelerating as the climate continues to warm:
1. scale of weight redistribution from Greenland ice sheet melting to the 
Antarctic inland ice storage, and any potential knock on effect on earth's 
shape, axial tilt, etc.;2. possible disturbance to the existing current systems 
and temperature/salinity gradient due to point water withdrawal;3. the amount 
of heat released from the quantity of sea water pumped up to let frozen, and 
any effect that might have on the climate system;4. the massive numbers of wind 
turbines needed to power such an operation (including the installation of these 
turbines), and any disturbance this may cause on marine life, and perhaps even 
the wind currents?

Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543+41 61 535 0508 
(Switzerland, landline)
 

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:45 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/203/2016/Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 203-210, 2016
doi:10.5194/esd-7-203-201610 Mar 2016Delaying future sea-level rise by storing 
water in AntarcticaK. Frieler, M. Mengel, and A. LevermannPublished in Earth 
Syst. Dynam. Discuss.: 13 Oct 2015
Revised: 12 Jan 2016 
Published: 10 Mar 2016Abstract. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stopped 
today, sea level would continue to rise for centuries, with the long-term 
sea-level commitment of a 2 °C warmer world significantly exceeding 2 m. In 
view of the potential implications for coastal populations and ecosystems 
worldwide, we investigate, from an ice-dynamic perspective, the possibility of 
delaying sea-level rise by pumping ocean water onto the surface of the 
Antarctic ice sheet. We find that due to wave propagation ice is discharged 
much faster back into the ocean than would be expected from a pure advection 
with surface velocities. The delay time depends strongly on the distance from 
the coastline at which the additional mass is placed and less strongly on the 
rate of sea-level rise that is mitigated. A millennium-scale storage of at 
least 80 % of the additional ice requires placing it at a distance of at least 
700 km from the coastline. The pumping energy required to elevate the potential 
energy of ocean water to mitigate the currently observed 3 mm yr−1will exceed 7 
% of the current global primary energy supply. At the same time, the approach 
offers a comprehensive protection for entire coastlines particularly including 
regions that cannot be protected by dikes.Citation: Frieler, K., Mengel, M., 
and Levermann, A.: Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in 
Antarctica, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 203-210, doi:10.5194/esd-7-203-2016, 2016.-- 
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.

Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters

2016-03-19 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

I think Michael intended to reply to all but replied only to me instead (see 
below).
One additional point I want to make is that, scientists and engineers tend to 
get lost in technical solutions to remedy problems that have much more obvious, 
upstream solutions.  We need to dare to THINK BIG, and be MUCH MORE PROACTIVE 
in alerting the society (meaning, take it upon yourself as an individual to 
seek out all media outlets that would listen, including widely read internet 
blogs, etc.) to the problem of mixing human waste from the flushing of the 
toilet, into the toxic laden and much diluted sewage stream - the original sin 
of the genius of western style toilet and plumbing design.  "Humanure" is the 
most valuable resource we're flushing down the toilet, and whereby robbing the 
topsoil of the nutrients that went into feeding us.  It needs to be collected, 
treated, composted, and reapplied to the soil to complete a basic sustainable 
cycle for land health.  The other obvious problem that must be addressed 
upstream is to restrict the variety and quantity of toxic chemicals 
unnecessarily used and dumped into the sewage from all kinds of sources.  The 
public needs to hear from experts who deal with the trash and sewage they dump 
mindlessly (and allowing industries to dump), before any significant push for 
systemic redesign can be hoped for.

Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543+41 61 535 0508 
(Switzerland, landline)

On Friday, March 18, 2016 5:51 PM, Michael Hayes  
wrote:

 Maggie and Mark,

Maggie; Thank you for clarifying my statement as I did try to,
clumsily, cover both toxic and non-toxic efforts. In essence, the
point I was trying to make was that the technology is, for all
practical purposes, identical for both food production and
contamination removal from our coastal seas.

Thank you for offering to act as a conduit between our 2
languages/cultures and I would like to encourage you to work as
actively as possible to help us begin a more robust flow of
information between the 2 languages-cultures. As geoengineering is
obviously a global subject, we all need the efforts of those that can
straddle the language and cultural divide.

Clearly, Asia is a world leader in marine biomass production (and many
other geoengineering relevant subjects) and thus has a great deal to
offer the to the discussion.

Mark; Thank you for the run down on the tech (BTW: phosphorus recovery
from sewage became commercially available last year or the year
before). However, short of destruction of nuclear species (which is
obviously impossible) we need to find a way to reduce the overwhelming
complex contaminates in the meat to basic atomic elements. That is why
I recommended plasma incinerators as that is basically what they do.

Beyond the completeness of plasma incineration, I believe it is
important to couple the advanced RAS technology to plasma incinerators
as that would help many coastal communities to handle both toxic
sewage and trash. As we know, even highly expensive tech can be made
available to even poor communities if the tech production volume is
great enough. I, myself, would like to see trash removed from the seas
as much as biological/chemical contaminates.

Best regards,

Michael

On 3/16/16, Maggie Zhou  wrote:
> Mark, where can one find more info about these technologies you mentioned,
> and how well do they deal with heavy metals, and toxic chemicals not
> suitable by incineration?  After recovering the valuable resources from the
> oysters, what relative volume/size is of the leftover contaminated oysters?
> To all, I did alert the authors of the Chinese paper that started this
> thread, by forwarding the relevant critiques on oyster for carbon
> sequestration to them, and invited them to join this googlegroup (not sure
> if they could do so from inside China though).
> Michael, my earlier comment was a direct response to your mixing sewage
> treatment and food production together in optimistic statements such as
> below:"... if the oysters were grown in an enclosed and submerged
> HDPEpipeline bases designed RAS operation, the oyster's solid waste could
> becollected and then used to grow microalgae which could then be used to
> producecarbon negative products. The algae grown in such a way, even
> operations positioned directly over sewage discharge pipes,could supply
> globally significant and sustainable supplies of biofuel andbiochar can be
> produced from the post lipid extraction biomass. Thatcombination represents
> an important roadmap to negative emission on asignificant scale while
> reducing sewage contamination of our coastal watersand/or supplying carbon
> negative protein."
> Maggie
>
>
>    On Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:20 PM, "markcap...@podenergy.org"
>  wrote:
>
>
>  Michael,
> Resource recovery on the contaminated oyster meat is ready for demonstration
> at about 10 wet tons per

Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters

2016-03-19 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Mark, where can one find more info about these technologies you mentioned, and 
how well do they deal with heavy metals, and toxic chemicals not suitable by 
incineration?  After recovering the valuable resources from the oysters, what 
relative volume/size is of the leftover contaminated oysters?
To all, I did alert the authors of the Chinese paper that started this thread, 
by forwarding the relevant critiques on oyster for carbon sequestration to 
them, and invited them to join this googlegroup (not sure if they could do so 
from inside China though).
Michael, my earlier comment was a direct response to your mixing sewage 
treatment and food production together in optimistic statements such as 
below:"... if the oysters were grown in an enclosed and submerged HDPEpipeline 
bases designed RAS operation, the oyster's solid waste could becollected and 
then used to grow microalgae which could then be used to producecarbon negative 
products. The algae grown in such a way, even operations positioned directly 
over sewage discharge pipes,could supply globally significant and sustainable 
supplies of biofuel andbiochar can be produced from the post lipid extraction 
biomass. Thatcombination represents an important roadmap to negative emission 
on asignificant scale while reducing sewage contamination of our coastal 
watersand/or supplying carbon negative protein."
Maggie


On Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:20 PM, "markcap...@podenergy.org" 
 wrote:
 

 Michael,
Resource recovery on the contaminated oyster meat is ready for demonstration at 
about 10 wet tons per day with Hydrothermal Processes (HTP).  Larger scale, but 
more expensive, with Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO).
These technologies are demonstrating and making proposals to recover resources 
from sewage sludge with first commercial scale units that or larger.  I expect 
we will recover Phosphate and other metals as a clay like sludge which can be 
dried and shipped for processing.  Depending on the temperature of operation, 
we can recover most of the N as ammonia.  Pharmaceuticals and other 
carbon/hydrocarbon will be converted to bio-oil and biogas (HTP) or 
heat-to-electricity (SCWO).
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
From: Michael Hayes 
Date: Fri, March 11, 2016 3:36 pm
To: Maggie Zhou 
Cc: geoengineering , 
"oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" , 
"oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org" , 
"andrew.lock...@gmail.com" , 
"renaud.derich...@gmail.com" ,
"gh...@sbcglobal.net" 

Maggie et al.,
Your absolutely correct on the contamination transfer issue and the importance 
of getting that issue recognized in such papers and discussions. In my original 
post on this subject (thread), I mentioned that I still have not figured out 
what to do with the contaminated oyster meat. About the only long term disposal 
would be in deep wells or run through a plasma incinerator equipped with an 
extensive emissions filtration system.
However, oyster RAS systems may offer the best approach to trapping the 
contaminates and we need to come up with some form of profit incentive to spark 
building such systems globally. A large number of high level analyses are 
pointing to the sewage contamination issue as a top environmental, human health 
care, and policy issue.
Also, it is important to make clear that not all oyster (or mariculture in 
general) will be contaminated and that the advanced cultivation technology now 
available and in current use can deliver both environmental and nutrient 
benefits on a global scale. Bringing this technology to the global scale is the 
lowest hanging fruit in the geoengineering spectrum as cheaper/better food and 
cleaner waters are critical to improving the global carbon balance (or 
imbalance). 
Michael  


Michael Hayes











  
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Maggie Zhou  wrote:

1. Has anyone bothered to contact the authors of the paper (or the journal 
editors) that Andrew sent out at the beginning of this thread (growing oysters 
to sequester C)?  They need to be informed of their misunderstanding of the 
ocean chemistry regarding carbon.
2. Municipal water treatment is (or at least should be) about getting rid of 
far more than organic matter and nutrients in the waste water.  There are heavy 
metals, toxic industrial compounds including persistent pesticides, and 
radioactive material (diluted and discharged, as following the hare-brained 
doctrine "the solution to pollution is dilution"), etc.  This whole aspect of 
decontamination seems to be missing in the upbeat papers about growing food to 
feed more people out of waste water.
Maggie



On Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Re: [geo] Evidence for deep-ocean frozen methane release VERY bad news?

2015-10-15 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

The East Siberia Arctic Shelf methane plumes are of even greater concern, as 
the ocean depth there is only tens of meters in vast areas (so much less weight 
to keep the lid on, and no time to oxidize the rising methane), the methane 
deposit in that area is the largest in the entire ocean, and a high percentage 
of the sea floor was found to be already perforated with methane plumes rising 
directly to the surface, as of several years ago. 

Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
 


 On Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:05 PM, Oliver Tickell 
 wrote:
   

 The message seems to be that most methane is oxidised to CO2 in the water.

That means the main consequence may not be a warming one. Seas margin 
destabilisation leading to collapse and tsunamis would not be nice. Nor 
would spread of anoxia. Nor would additional ocean acidification.

Oliver.

On 15/10/2015 15:28, Eric Durbrow wrote:
> Abstract:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GC005955/abstract
>
> Press Release:
>
> Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a dark 
> ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention. But 
> this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane 'ice' transition 
> from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas.
>
> New University of Washington research suggests that subsurface warming could 
> be causing more methane gas to bubble up off the Washington and Oregon coast.
>
> The study, to appear in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 
> shows that of 168 bubble plumes observed within the past decade, a 
> disproportionate number were seen at a critical depth for the stability of 
> methane hydrates.
>
> "We see an unusually high number of bubble plumes at the depth where methane 
> hydrate would decompose if seawater has warmed," said lead author H. Paul 
> Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. "So it is not likely to be just 
> emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the decomposition 
> of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years."
>
> Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth's climate in the past. It 
> is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change, 
> although recent studies have reported warming-related methane emissions in 
> Arctic permafrost and off the Atlantic coast.
>
> Of the 168 methane plumes in the new study, some 14 were located at the 
> transition depth -- more plumes per unit area than on surrounding parts of 
> the Washington and Oregon seafloor.
>
> If methane bubbles rise all the way to the surface, they enter the atmosphere 
> and act as a powerful greenhouse gas. But most of the deep-sea methane seems 
> to get consumed during the journey up. Marine microbes convert the methane 
> into carbon dioxide, producing lower-oxygen, more-acidic conditions in the 
> deeper offshore water, which eventually wells up along the coast and surges 
> into coastal waterways.
>
> "Current environmental changes in Washington and Oregon are already impacting 
> local biology and fisheries, and these changes would be amplified by the 
> further release of methane," Johnson said.
>
> Another potential consequence, he said, is the destabilization of seafloor 
> slopes where frozen methane acts as the glue that holds the steep sediment 
> slopes in place.
>
> Methane deposits are abundant on the continental margin of the Pacific 
> Northwest coast. A 2014 study from the UW documented that the ocean in the 
> region is warming at a depth of 500 meters (0.3 miles), by water that formed 
> decades ago in a global warming hotspot off Siberia and then traveled with 
> ocean currents east across the Pacific Ocean. That previous paper calculated 
> that warming at this depth would theoretically destabilize methane deposits 
> on the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs from northern California to 
> Vancouver Island.
>
> At the cold temperatures and high pressures present on the continental 
> margin, methane gas in seafloor sediments forms a crystal lattice structure 
> with water. The resulting icelike solid, called methane hydrate, is unstable 
> and sensitive to changes in temperature. When the ocean warms, the hydrate 
> crystals dissociate and methane gas leaks into the sediment. Some of that gas 
> escapes from the sediment pores as a gas.
>
> The 2014 study calculated that with present ocean warming, such hydrate 
> decomposition could release roughly 0.1 million metric tons of methane per 
> year into the sediments off the Washington coast, about the same amount of 
> methane from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout.
>
> The new study looks for evidence of bubble plumes off the coast, including 
> observations by UW research cruises, earlier scientific studies and local 
> fishermen's reports. The authors included bubble plumes that rose at least 
> 150 meters (490 feet) tall that clearly originate from the seafloor. The 
>

Re: [geo] Re: Have we got space to store seawater

2015-09-18 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

Maybe not so simple.  Deserts have in recent years been discovered as possibly 
a huge carbon sink that has been soaking up atmospheric CO2 and storing it as 
inorganic carbon (both in soil and in ground water).  How will flooding with 
sea water affect that?  See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1409 (2008)
"A CO2-gulping desert in a remote corner of China may not be an isolated 
phenomenon. Halfway around the world, researchers have found that Nevada's 
Mojave Desert, square meter for square meter, absorbs about the same amount of 
CO2 as some temperate forests. The two sets of findings suggest that deserts 
are unsung players in the global carbon cycle.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6058/886.2.summary (2011)

Report of "significant terrestrial C accumulation caused by CO2 enhancement to 
net ecosystem productivity in an intact, undisturbed arid ecosystem" (the 
Mojave 
desert)http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2184.html 
(2014)

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/43/5/375.abstract (2015)
"Together, inorganic carbon as soil carbonate (∼940 PgC) and as bicarbonate in 
groundwater (∼1404 PgC) surpass soil organic carbon (∼1530 PgC) as the largest 
terrestrial pool of carbon."


Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
 


 On Friday, September 18, 2015 11:29 AM, Brian Cady 
 wrote:
   

 Diking and flooding tropical deserts, primarily the Sahara, might:
- Isolate some seawater.
- Allow more sealife/mariculture, and thus, perhaps
- fix more carbon from air via life.

Brian

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:03:16 AM UTC-4, Parminder Singh wrote:
Recent measurements by NASA using satellites indicate around 8cm rises and 
predict to increase to around a metre at the end of the century if temperatures 
remain unchecked. Worst to come with complete ice melts from the 
Antarctica/Greenland.
One paper mentioned the Sahara.
(Schuiling, R.D. in Geochemical Engineering:current applications (1998) The 
greenhouse effect; cures from geochemicalengineering and future trends. Eds. 
S.P.Vriend and J.P.Zijlstra.J.Geochem.Expl. A9-A13).   Parminder 
Singh Independent Civil Engineer Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 
    


-- 
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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits

2015-08-25 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

I just want to emphasize the distinction, that incentive does not equal 
carbon credit.  I have no objection per se to using incentives as a possible 
policy tool to encourage increasing albedo of the built environment - if there 
is strong evidence for benefit and little potential harm (environmental 
toxicity of paint material?), but carbon credits have a very specific 
meaning, and consequence: In a mandatory carbon market, using SRM to create 
carbon credits enables more carbon emissions beyond what was set under the 
cap of a cap-and-trade scheme (a very ineffective scheme in itself that 
benefits Wall Street, not much the climate).
Similarly, it's one thing to use a permit system to reduce black carbon 
emissions (which is great), quite another to create a market for credits from 
such projects.  I wish that scientists involved in these research and 
implementation projects can get over the idea that somehow everything needs to 
work through a market - please realize that it's really only the Wall Street 
who benefits from and are intensely interested in commodifying everything, 
creating a market for everything, and they don't have the best interest of the 
planet in mind. 
Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
 


 On Sunday, August 23, 2015 4:09 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net 
wrote:
   

 Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon creditsActually, working input from 
an advisory committee organized by V. Ramanathan and on which I served, the 
Gold Standard Foundation (which certifies projects) has promulgated a new 
standard for BC, etc. from cookstoves (basically, what one would need to do to 
be a certified project) and it uses the GWP-20 for BC and other species. There 
is also an effort underway trying to figure out how best to create a market for 
credits from such projects (and possibly other short-lived species projects). 
That limiting short-lived species has so many co-benefits (indeed, health 
effects may be the main reason for cutting BC and climate change is a 
co-benefit of that), so it may be that if some countries use a permit system 
type approach to improve air quality, it might well be that a market could be 
developed. 

Also, the new lifecycle assessment approach being developed for ANSI 
consideration also is set up for using GWPs with shorter time durations other 
than 100 years, basically set for the time period from emission to some fixed 
date (so, say 2050—one just integrates the same equations out over the period 
of interest)--so what one gets out are relative contributions out to the time.  
This choice does mean that effects of these species after that time don’t count 
in the rankings, and so is best used for considering how to get a response in 
the near-term. For the long-term, CO2 overwhelms everything else, so to limit 
long-term change the focus has to be to cut CO2 emissions (something well-know 
and the roles of other species just aren’t all that important).

I’d also note that to be complete, all forcings need to be accounted for, so, 
for example,  tropospheric sulfate is included as a cooling influence in the 
ANSI draft, and so cutting its emissions as coal use is cut does count as a 
warming influence (if one accounts only for the Kyoto basket of long-lived 
GHGs, that is just not an adequate approximation to how models would respond to 
the change—remember that GWPs are only approximations of what is done by 
models, models don’t use GWPs). So, conceptually, it would be possible to 
include SRM in the set of forcings, but one also has to consider another change 
in this new type of analysis, and that is not to be looking at results for a 
unit emission in just one year, but to be looking at operations out over time, 
so one focuses on what is causing what change, etc. So, one would not look at 
some unit SRM for one year, but at the relative influence of a planned 
implementation of SRM over some time period. I’d also note that what matters 
about SRM is more than the temperature response (e.g., changes in precipitation 
patterns), so just treating its temperature aspects would be pretty limited 
[again, remember, all this GWP formalism is merely a way to approximate what 
full model simulations would provide as a result—and for an intervention 
scenario, I would think one would really want to get beyond just an 
approximation of the temperature response].

So, there is movement on all of this, but ...

Mike MacCracken


On 8/21/15, 10:43 AM, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote:


I agree with David and Olivier.  Let's also remember that black carbon etc are 
not part of carbon credit schemes exactly because they're not GHGs, even though 
they have effect on global warming, and there are scientifically valid reasons 
for calculating some kind of equivalence like GWP for some purposes, awarding 
SRM with carbon credit is completely wrong.

As to the possible, if temporary, negative feedback on terrestrial

Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits

2015-08-20 Thread 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering

How many carbon credits is a tonne of SRM worth?
Seriously?  This is precisely what geoengineering proponents promised that it 
won't be used for - as a substitute in any way, shape or form to carbon 
emission mitigation.  To get acceptance for the idea of even funding research 
into SRM or other geoengineering schemes in response to global warming, the 
repeated promise was that it is not meant to replace emission reductions, only 
a backup to buy us some time...
Using SRM to generate carbon credits is EXACTLY to generate EXTRA carbon 
emissions allowances - even though all SRM could do, at best, is masking the 
true impact of the current GHG levels on warming while the spraying is ongoing, 
without ever removing a single atom of carbon from the atmosphere for which 
it's to claim carbon credit.  In short, SRM will lead to even MORE emissions, 
not less, and due to the masking and the lack of public awareness that it's the 
masking that's keeping the temperatures from shooting up even higher even 
quicker, it just helps keeping business-as-usual longer, on top of ocean 
acidification, acid rain, potential disruption of regional climate patterns, 
etc etc.

Maggie Zhou, PhDhttps://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543
 


 On Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:15 AM, Andrew Lockley 
andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
   

 How many carbon credits is a tonne of SRM worth? We could work this out as 
watts cooling or weight sulphur for weight carbon. Doesn't really matter. 
Thanks Andrew -- 
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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Climate Activists With Cheap Balloons Could Create a DIY Geoengineering Nightmare

[geo] Warming waters -> Vit B1 deficiency -> fish & sea bird population collapse

Re: [geo] Re: MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

Re: [geo] Re: MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

[geo] E.coli to capture CO2, convert to formic acid?

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

Re: [geo] Chemtrails conspiracy theorists are sending death threats to climate scientists – VICE News

Re: [geo] modification to cloud whitening process

Re: [geo] modification to cloud whitening process

Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

Re: [geo] Geoengineering by whales

[geo] RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LARGE SUNSHADES TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING

Re: [geo] Mechanical Fracturing of Core-Shell Undercooled Metal Particles for Heat-Free Soldering

Re: [geo] ESD - Abstract - Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica

Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters

Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters

Re: [geo] Evidence for deep-ocean frozen methane release VERY bad news?

Re: [geo] Re: Have we got space to store seawater

Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits

Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits

27 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information