On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
r.d.schuil...@uu.nl wrote:
Therefore I say: Do as nature has always done it, by weathering basic
silicates. Only because we are messing up the CO2 system, the weathering must
move up to enhanced weathering, Olaf schuiling
Ah, given the
True, employing weathering to consume all of our CO2 is a daunting task, yet
that's exactly what will happen over the next 100 kyrs if we do nothing:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
So the (engineering) task is to see when, where, and how we can
Dear Ron
Very large (eg 2TW - 20TW) wind installation will have effects on the
climate system by changing wind patterns, though the scale is not yet I
think well agreed; similarly large biomass plantations have albedo and
evapotranspiration effects. They could thus be seen as fitting the Royal
I think that we can all agree that we have a global problem (excess air CO2,
OK, and other GHGs) that will require effective actions whose sum effect will
counter or remove the problem at a global scale. Because all actions have
risks, costs, negative impacts as well as benefits, we need to
On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Oliver Morton olivermor...@economist.com wrote:
Dear Ron
Very large (eg 2TW - 20TW) wind installation will have effects on the climate
system by changing wind patterns, though the scale is not yet I think well
agreed; similarly large biomass plantations have
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
snip
Regardless, we need further research to
better understand if we have any globally effective options whose (cost
+impact+ risk)/benefit passes whatever $, environmental, and ethics smell
tests the world community
Eugene cc list
Since I can't imagine that you can believe you can convince me on any
of your topics below, I presume that you meant this to go to the full list.
Ron
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:09 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
What is the proof that carbon reduction plays any
Ken with ccs.
1. I think you are being too hard below on the Royal Society Report.
That report clearly states that it is made up of two approaches, whose names
are not being criticized (CDR and SRM, in that order on page xi). It is not
obvious why a name that combines two names
Oliver and ccs.
I mostly agree with all you say below, including your final Is that
not.. question below. But I ask that you say more about two items:
1. How can your very large scale deployment of wind energy
(highlighted below) fit into the Royal Society's two part (SRM and
