PS to last
Hello Eric,
Many apologies for my post-midnight slips.
Although I think the the difference in costs between the 2 systems is not
as important as the fact that both systems are extremely inexpensive , my
long-standing collaborator Stephen Salter has conducted careful
comprehensive cost
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544215005654
Energy
Available online 28 May 2015, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.098
In Press
Modeling and optimal operation of carbon capture from the air driven by
intermittent and volatile wind power
Canbing Li
Haiqing Shi
Liang Sun
Jon,
I think you are underestimating the human propensity to assume the best about
alternatives to paths that worry them. We are not mitigating enough because
there are too many people who think mitigation will have all sorts of negative
impacts on them. Those same people are unlikely to
Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering
in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly
as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate
with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well
It may be more effective to point out that even those who assert that
Geoengineering at some level can be safe and effective, assert with equal
strength that it should not be seen as an alternative to emissions avoidance.
Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.
On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:12 PM, Jon
IPCC and the World bank ignore that we need ramp up removal technologies
until we are removing more CO2 than we are putting into the atmosphere.
This ramp up needs to start straight away, if we are to have a reasonable
chance of avoiding both dangerous global warming and dangerous ocean
As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a
really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.
There's at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering
provides a fail safe for fixing the climate if/when we fail to
successfully
Recall that the natural sink strength today is about 4 or 5 Gt(C)/y … there is
no reason to think that this sink strength, which is effectively driven by the
difference between the current atmospheric concentration and the concentration
in an atmosphere in equilibrium with the current ocean
So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at
their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the
draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of
climate or carbon dioxide. That, I think, gives a hint at how much they
Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it
stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009,
ignoring what happened in the six years since then.
Sent from my iPad
On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken
Dear Mike and Jon,
I agree with Jon.
And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with
geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most
likely option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2
is injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015)
I'm all for mitigation and push hard for it, writing legal declarations
seeking to get leaders to pay attention to the issue and the law, pushing
for going after short-lived species in the near term as well and personally
investing in and encouraging development of green technologies--but then we
Poster's note : relevant to CDR by land use management
http://m.pnas.org/content/112/15/4594
PNAS Homepage Current Issue vol. 112 no. 15 Ana Maria Roxana
Petrescu, 4594–4599
The uncertain climate footprint of wetlands under human pressure
Significance
Wetlands are unique ecosystems
Poster's note : response below. Relevant to land use CDR
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2653.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201506
No-till agriculture and climate change mitigation
Henry Neufeldt, Gabrielle Kissinger Joseph Alcamo
Nature Climate Change 5, 488–489 (2015)
14 matches
Mail list logo
