Dear Stephen,
Here too, the attribution would be a big challenge. In this case the
challenge would be because of the presence of large internal variability in
the climate system, particularly on regional scales.
Bala
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:40 PM Stephen Salter wrote:
> Dear Bala
>
> . . . .
Many thanks for the link .However, while the paper is convincing in term of
theoretical orbital mechanics, I can't find any treatment of using solar
sail attitude alone to manage torque and acceleration issues, for as the
authors state, it
"does not address practicality issues such as the d
See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136648
This is straightforward to calculate, and wouldn’t be any more difficult to
find than L1. (That is, solar pressure is well known, so is gravity.)
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent
" you just need to displace yourself sunward until the forces balance…"
How far sunward do you calculate that to be, and howfar from Lagrange 1 :
It'cold out there , and there's no valet parking.
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:36:24 AM UTC-4, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
>
> You don’t need a counter
What is the margin of error?
On Sun, 3 May 2020, 15:55 Govindasamy Bala, wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> In the case of CDR like DAC, one can immediately know much carbon is
> extracted and pricing is easy. In the case of carbon stocks increase due
> to SRM, attribution of the stock increase to SRM would
Dear Bala
. . . . However countries facing expensive damage from hurricanes and
typhoons could measure surface temperatures in surrounding seas and pay
to have them reduced to more acceptable values. I understand the 26.5 C
is nice. Rough calculations appear to give extremely attractive re
Andrew,
In the case of CDR like DAC, one can immediately know much carbon is
extracted and pricing is easy. In the case of carbon stocks increase due
to SRM, attribution of the stock increase to SRM would be almost an
impossible task in the real world.
Bala
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:07 PM Andre
Renaud,
You are not wrong.
The SRM world has two forcings; one from increased CO2 and the other from
sunlight reduction. The sunlight reduction alone offsets the warming from
CO2 and causes a slight reduction in NPP. However, the CO2-fertilization
effect (and the associated very large (??) increa
You don’t need a countervailing force, you just need to displace yourself
sunward until the forces balance… (though how far depends on areal mass
density, and displacing too far sunward will require greater area to shade the
Earth if I recall right).
But even if the propellant requirement is ze
Yes indeed, but the model used maybe (I hope) took already this factor in
consideration, did it?
Le dim. 3 mai 2020 à 12:46, Andrew Lockley a
écrit :
> If I understand correctly, SRM reduces decomposition more than NPP -
> presumably because cooler, drier soils are less biologically active.
>
>
If I understand correctly, SRM reduces decomposition more than NPP -
presumably because cooler, drier soils are less biologically active.
Andrew
On Sun, 3 May 2020, 11:41 Renaud de RICHTER,
wrote:
> Dear Andrew and Bala,
>
>
> All your discussion you had during this post is very difficult to
>
Dear Andrew and Bala,
All your discussion you had during this post is very difficult to
understand.
Bala and the other authors of the article cited in the subject found with
their model that a 2 X CO2 by the end of century will enhance gross primary
production (GPP) and net primary production (
If 0.25 m2 per tonne CO2 is correct as presumed , ~ 10 billion m2, or
10,000 km2 of relector area would be required
At 1 micron thickness that translates into 1 cubic meter per km2. assuming
for example' sake a film with a density of 1, 5 , like graphene
strengthened aluminized one
13 matches
Mail list logo
