And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would
offset‹offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet
sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to
avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and
irreversibilities such
Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I certainly
mentioned the adverse impacts SRM is proposed to counteract. I spent 15
minutes in the beginning discussing the nightmare rationale for SRM and I
played the newly released IASS video (http://youtu.be/3GKjl7afwaY) to
Cost context from private email (Olaf OK'ed posting)
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
r.d.schuil...@uu.nl wrote:
Well, these data are easy
As the weathering reaction is Mg2SiO4 + 4 CO2 + 4 H2O -- 2 Mg2+ + 4 HCO3-+
H4SiO4. It means that 140 gram of olivine neutralize
Bjornar etal
1. I also enjoyed the short IASS video. However, I was surprised that
there was no mention there or at their web site of biochar. Any explanation
for this omission?
2. Your talk had geoengineering in the title, but it seemed to be
only on SRM. Will your
Keith and ccs:
Yesterday, you wrote: PS. Biochar is a good idea in any case. It
would be even better if the heat to make it came from a cheap renewable source
and the off gas
collected to make transport fuel.
Both of your hopes are already standard (indeed mandatory if you
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Keith and ccs:
Yesterday, you wrote: PS. Biochar is a good idea in any case. It would
be even better if the heat to make it came from a cheap renewable source and
the off gas
collected to make transport
Interestingly, one could equally well replace SRM with mitigation
in the paragraph below starting The main ethical
Tom.
++
On 2/22/2014 10:57 AM, Bjørnar Egede-Nissen wrote:
Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I
certainly mentioned the
Dr. Wigley, cc list:
I am afraid I don't see the parallel you see between SRM and
mitigation. I see and read about quite small opposition to most mitigation
schemes (solar wind, energy efficiency). Yes from some on aesthetic grounds,
Yes from some objecting to higher costs. Yes
Keith etal
I respond below in bold, with [RWL:
On Feb 22, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Keith and ccs:
Yesterday, you wrote: PS. Biochar is a good idea in any case. It
