It's clear from Congressman Smith's endorsement of geoengineering that he
sees it as preferable to regulations that would reduce emissions. I would
call that reckless and radical rather than "middle of the road".
Brian Cartwright
*
> Technology Advances Civilization. B
To save some the time of listening to Walter’s 45-minute exposition, here
is a synopsis of some main points.
His overall argument is that changes in land management can create physical
and hydrological conditions that have an overall cooling effect. He
advocates creating a “soil carbon
... and the all-important link:
https://vimeo.com/251739209
Brian
On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-5, Brian Cartwright wrote:
>
> Thanks to Andrew and Greg. I didn't go through paywall but my comment
> picks up on the mention of "land management" as a wa
ways be
in lockstep with atmospheric CO2 levels. Walter's presentation runs from
4:00 to 52:00 so not short, but I recommend it. Then there's a 16-minute
case study from western Saudi Arabia by Neil Spackman, and Q
I'd be very interested in feedback from this group on Walter's ideas about
cli
To Olaf,
I don't think it was Andrew's own statement that CCS is cheap and secure;
he's posting a cut of an abstract that is of interest just because
CCS is geoengineering-related.
I do appreciate your cautions about CCS and am interested in the potential
for natural processes to sequester
Thanks for posting this, Andrew. I haven't read Eric's book but have
followed these methods among permaculturists and other regenerative
farmers.
I would just like to add that I don't think the climate benefits of
regenerative agriculture are a simple function of sequestered carbon
h the biomass source of the CO2 being sequestered.
Best wishes,
Brian Cartwright
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Vera Heck <h...@pik-potsdam.de> wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
> here a very recently published article of mine on the ‚greenness‘ of tCDR
> via biomass plantations. Alt
Thanks for posting, Andrew. Marin Carbon Project (MCP) has gotten a lot of
attention for dramatic documented results with compost application on
rangeland. I think these results beg the question of *how that carbon is
sequestered, *though. Is it from the actual mass of carbon in the applied
Thanks Greg.
I have been watching the language included in successive drafts during the
week and the mention of sinks, especially balancing sources and sinks, is a
positive change.
I'd also point out section 31, where the Ad Hoc Working Group is requested
to elaborate "to include all
To geoengineering,
I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy
with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing?
On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling
emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is
To the geoengineering group,
What are the ramifications of calling for "carbon removal"? I think the
issue is more than semantic hair-splitting.
I addressed this by responding a month ago to Noah Deich's article
analogizing carbon to trash:
iously.
Brian
On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:11:52 AM UTC-4, Brian Cartwright
wrote:
>
> Posted this morning in response:
>
> You accept without question the status quo approach to “trash”:
> "1) reduce waste production,
> 2) recycle as much of the remaining waste as po
Posted this morning in response:
You accept without question the status quo approach to “trash”:
"1) reduce waste production,
2) recycle as much of the remaining waste as possible, and
3) remove the rest in sealed landfills that protect the environment from
the consequences of this pollution."
Thanks, Stephen, but isn't it true that most CCN over the Amazon are of
biological origin?
To put it in very plain language, the typical assumption about where rain
comes from is that it blows in from the ocean. I'm interested to what
extent it is pulled in by forests. Do you think
considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open
water on ocean or inland lake.
Brian Cartwright
--
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
Thanks for weighing in, Andrew. I agree that pricing is the effective
signal in this market; note that there are not major investments being made
in infrastructure like refining, because there are not secure long-term new
supplies. This is an opportunist industry at this point. Saudi pricing
?
Brian Cartwright
--
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
appreciated. A good
essay of hers on making agricultural land act as a carbon sink is at:
http://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-SoilCarbonAgriculture(18May10).pdf
Brian Cartwright
On Monday, December 8, 2014 8:02:50 AM UTC-5, Brian Cartwright wrote:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide
many physical scientists discount this as a given, but when
an increasing proportion of earth's surface is deforested, desertified,
etc, the natural drawdown effect decreases; it should instead be amplified
by restorative human activity and not edited out of our climate data.
Brian Cartwright
To Greg,
This is somewhat off the topic of categorizing geoengineering approaches, but I
need to respond to your warnings about considering biological remedies for
climate. The remedies being considered in this category are almost without
exception simply reversals of damage done by humans, so
To William, Ron and group,
Permit me to add some points in favor of biochar to Ron's list. He mentions
that soils are a larger sink for carbon than the atmosphere, and there is a
need to increase soil carbon. Indeed about half the CO2 in the atmosphere
came from soil sources, and the absence
Ironic that none of the commenters so far has picked up on the subversive
anti-geoengineering undertone of the video.
Brian
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:22:58 AM UTC-5, Thilo Wiertz wrote:
Dear all,
the IASS http://www.iass-potsdam.de/, together with the Climate Media
Factory
To John and group,
There is, as you describe, a logical progression in the direction of carbon
sequestration, and I believe soil is the sink of first choice. The methods
to put that carbon in the soil vary enormously with the physical and
biological features of landscapes that are in need of
[2] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2065.html
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Brian Cartwright
briancar...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote:
Social change means to the advocates enforcing what
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote:
Social change means to the advocates enforcing what they see as
frugal morality on people, though, of course, never on the advocates.
We on the technical fix side tend in the direction of letting people
do fairly much
overstated”. I agree with others that she is dangerous - because she is
anti-science, much worse than no science.
more below.
On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Brian Cartwright
briancar...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Just a few comments:
Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar
Just a few comments:
Ron - I think Vandana Shiva's cautions about biochar and other
geoengineering ideas (role ... should be zero) may be rhetorically
overstated. But I just want to look at biochar to the extent that it can be
called geoengineering. If I could characterize your views, you
to euggordon
If you read my message you will see I don't rely on reducing atmospheric
CO2 but rather on using water vapor effects to cool the planet. Reducing
CO2 would be a side benefit.
Brian
On Oct 28, 2013 10:01 AM, Brian Cartwright briancartwrig...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just a few comments
Remarkably sloppy article. Claims it's urgent to spend trillions $/yr. to
suck CO2 out of the atmosphere without specifying what would be done with
it.
Brian
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 2:51:25 PM UTC-4, George Morrison wrote:
*Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now -
Let me point out that the source quoted in this article only said,
CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for
many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction
of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:21:47 AM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote:
*snip*
If we are indeed incapable of rationally controlling CO2 emissions, then,
very sadly, looking for viable alternative strategies also appears to be
too much to expect. We're indeed doomed.
*Greg, I don't accept
Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Brian Cartwright
briancar
ideas like manmade Pinatubos to
buy time. Time to do what?
Brian Cartwright
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:28:14 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
and disruption of water cycles, by restoring soil carbon which also takes
CO2 out of the atmosphere, using the well-studied geoengineering technique
of photosynthesis.
Brian Cartwright
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Let's say you ran a similar poll about
around the problem as if cutting emissions
were the only alternative to depriving ourselves of sunlight. I don't buy
that.
-- Brian Cartwright
On Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:11:27 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm
One
food and water security in areas of the globe with depleted soils, and
simple techniques of building carbon storage in those soils are among the
cheapest and most effective techniques for what your community calls CDR.
Sincerely, Brian Cartwright
On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:22:53 AM UTC-4, Ken
To Andrew, anyone not going to the link will not see the name of the person
apologizing here, Doug Craig.
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:32:02 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
Poster's note : despite the apologies to Lee, geoengineering does seem to
offer a way for deniers to get out of their
for
sequestration. I don't know anything about the research funding but the
video at this link has the feel of a slick promotion.
On Monday, June 3, 2013 3:45:03 AM UTC-4, Brian Cartwright wrote:
http://www.energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=64Itemid=71
A team
such that it could compete in a market environment without subsidies or a
price on carbon.
Anyone have knowedge or critique of this idea?
Brian Cartwright
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
to geoengineering:
The article in Science surprised a lot of people with data that
charcoal enters the world's oceans in massive quantities. My caution is
about language. A spin-off article made it to the Scientific American with
the title, Soils Cannot Lock Away Black Carbon. The author
40 matches
Mail list logo
