Wil and list:
Thanks for the lead.
I still don't understand how Biochar can be left out of discussions by groups
like the Met office and Mr..Boucher There are now 29 separate regional Biochar
groups (doubling approximately every year). Does anyone know of any other
geoengineering technology
Nathan:
I am in support of your proposal. Sorry to not be able to supply much of
anything you correctly identify as needed.
I would urge, however, at least two separate (not combined) tracks: SRM and
CDR. They have different roles and different constituencies. I think both have
been hurt by
John:
In part I would agree. I certainly agree on the two needs you identify below.
As I said today in a related discussion: saying that geoengineering can answer
both problems leaves a wrong or incomplete impression for most lay readers (not
this list). I think readers of this list would be
Andrew, Marty etal:
There is a third Biomass option - Biochar.
Besides sequestration and energy, there is soil augmentation income. - with
(potentially) large increases in soil productivity (and food issues - as well
as fertilizer reduction, water preservation and more.)
Your thought on
Geo list, Andrew, David, Marty etal?
The third international biochar conference in 4 years, sponsored by IBI
(www.biochar-international.org) ended today in Rio de Janeiro. In the next
several days, 50 of us will be on the Amazon near Manaus - looking at the
several-thousand year old Terra
Stuart, etal:
1. Per your Tuesday message repeated below, I believe an upper limit of 50 tons
char per hectare is on the low side of what is possible or desirable.
Last week, I was in Brazil looking at depths of terra preta soil that were
approaching 1 meter (I have seen photos with 2
Prof. Zeng and list:
1. I concur with your objections. But I have another - which is that neither
the present article or your own recent discussions on this list use the word
Biochar - which I think has great promise, and certainly has received as much
public notice as any of the other
David and list:
I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6
and the proposal at
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/doc05-p32-proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf
I mostly can endorse the need for
Ken and all
I like the idea of three concurrent meetings, as you suggest below. Also, I
hope there can
be some recognition of the way REDD+ will/can fit into the CDR portfolio. - as
it seems to be well on its way as the main already-recognized CDR. approach,
albeit short term.
Ron
-
Nando etal:
1. I take a different message from the original article by Axel Kleidon - still
without a date to be published. The first material below is found at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html?page=1
2 A draft
Andrew etal
1. I once looked at an all-electromagnetic (linear motor) launch approach that
might be a low cost alternative for what you want to do. Should be a lot of
literature on it.
2. Changing subject, I don't believe this list has had mention of an
alternative (bubbles - entirely
Dr. Lockley and ccs
I generally agree with your comments and offer the following as something
directly related to arctic/antarctic/methane/time bomb issues - the topic of
this thread..
The following is only a personal follow-up to conversations on this list about
a week ago re Dr.
Albert:
1. Thanks for this information on Bayer. Googling I found a bit more at
http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/bayer-co2-plastics/
which hints that the catalyst somehow involves zinc.
2. As described, I would put this in the carbon neutral, not CDR category. Of
course if the
List (and Andrew and other ccs)
In response to Andrew's comment (repeated in full below), Russell this AM sent
me the following (in full) with (my presumption) an intent to forward to the
list .
The ' optical density' to which Andrew Locksley's response refers, ( the term
is scarcely
Oliver -
Again - thanks for an interesting and helpful lead on Forum for the Future. I
hope you will keep supplying such l.eads.
1. What you have given below gets more interesting for CDR fans when you read
the appreciably longer story at the address you have given below:
[
Mike, Andrew (cc List)
1. Thanks for continuing this dialog. The part I find most encouraging in the
last several messages (below) is Andrew's statement in his last paragraph re
Bright Water:
. It's the most exciting new geoeng idea for a long time...
The next most encouraging
Andrew (with ccs)
Again, thanks. Today, mostly commenting only on your remarks back to me - with
which I mostly agree. No new topics.
But first, I worry that a description of driving through dense fog may mislead
some readers not familiar with the Bright Water concept. I hope you agree
that
Ken with few ccs
1. Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it up)
2. Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far put forth.
It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything over $10
million in the first year), but why not
List (plus three)
The following are three more recent additions to the Bright Water dialog from
two of the more active contributing, but non-Geoengineering list members. I
believe all others who have already commented on this topic are list-members.
Others who should be alerted will hopefully
Professor Robock: (with ccs)
In preparing a message about to be sent to you and the same ccs, I found this
following message from a few weeks ago.
I just found that the abstract deadline has been extended to 15 May - and
therefore some on these lists may still find it valuable to send a
Prof. Robock (with ccs)
1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a report
( Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene), where you are listed as a
co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable at
Josh:
I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report. Thanks for
pointing that paragraph out.
Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad nauseum - with
apologies) that
Prof. Rau:
1. It will take a while to get around the pay wall for the House article [ ^
House, K.Z., House, C.H, Schrag, D.P., Aziz, M.J. Electrochemical acceleration
of chemical weathering as an energetically feasible approach to mitigating
anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Sci.
Greg, List, etal (Hoping that Dr. Hansen finds time to read little items like
this - if from Dr. Rau)
see inserts below
- Original Message -
From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com,
joshuahorton...@gmail.com,
List (cc Dr. Rau, with thanks for alerting us to this interesting APS reporton
one form of CDR [below])
1. I found quite a few citations in addition to the NYTimes report by Mr.
Rudolf, but it took a while to get the actual 112 p report. It is at:
Greg (cc list).
Thanks for alerting us to this video, which I have watched. I learned a good
bit more from the pre-filed testimony and then reading the (not very long)
bill. The bill authorizes (but not appropriates) mainly for a still not quite
fixed indemnification process. I would expect
Ken, Henrik and list
1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being
questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it
underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net
Henrik and Ken (cc List)
1. Ken - thanks very much for sending the recommended 2002 article by Keith and
Rhodes. I had not seen this one. Their plot of electricity costs for three
options is one I shall try to add Biochar to (although comparing carbon
negativity (this list's focus - at least
Alan and list.
1. Thanks for sending the brochure on IPCC-5. I see several places that
Geoengineering could appear in each of the four reports, but the words
Geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) don't stand out anywhere -
much less Biochar or even REDD. Which sections will the Lima
Holly (cc list):
1. Thanks for entering this dialog - which (to remind) is partly about signing
a letter to the IPCC. This is also pertinent to our thread on representation at
an IPCC Lima meeting and, lastly,.re claimed HOME/ETC misrepresentations on
Geoengineering
2. I found your note
Holly (cc Alvia and List)
Mostly I agreed with your remarks below. But, like Ms. Gaskill, I was surprised
at your statement on rising temperatures. The cruciality of rising temperatures
is one of the few areas where most on this list - CDR and SRM alike - agree. We
are concerned not about
Robert and ccs
1. Thanks for the added links and information. Not yet mentioned on this list
is that your APS panel changed (added?) only one footnote (#18) - and as near
as I can tell - changed no conclusions. Still projecting $600/tonCO2, it seems.
2. As you may have noticed there has
Bob etal
Thanks for a very complete response.
I appreciate the rationale for limit of 2 or 3 or more degrees maximum, but am
going to still push for a 1.5 degree limit (ala Jim Hansen) - thinking we might
thereby get 2 or 2.5. I feel we could even do 1.5 if we got serious - and of
course we
Veli etal:
I agree with your unhappiness over the phrase Developed countries don't want
to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes).
However I took this fourth sentence in Ms Buck's second bullet (responding to
Michael) a different way. I took it be part of
Robert and list
The purpose of this note is to follow up on my, your, and list interest in the
Lima meeting.
In the spirit of focusing and saving space, I have selectively cut the
following to emphasize that problems seem to remain in how Geoengineering
technologies are evaluated -
Michael etal - especially Jim Mason
1. Re the 5 minute video on Ms Bronson - I was glad to see that and hope you
will keep alerting us to such. The surprise to me was her statement just before
the 4 minute mark that carbon dioxide was better in the atmosphere than in
geologic formations, the
Mark etal
The phrase aluminum toxicity is seen over and over again in the Biochar
literature - in the sense of Biochar having a positive effect. Unfortunately, I
have not yet found any technical papers to explain in detail why Biochar should
help. The best reference I have found so far on
Ken (cc list )
I have tried (as a rank amateur observer, not participant) to follow this
retreatjng September arctic ice topic for the last 5 years. I have come to a
different conclusion than expressed in your two articles.. The website I have
found most valuable can be located by remembering
List, Andrew, John , David , Ken
Andrew - I have re-read the paper you have cited below and decided to try to
put the numbers there into the context of the paper by Dr. David Wasdell that
you alerted us to on the 20th - which I also. found fascinating. For others, I
am referring to a large
Steve (cc Geo List and more ccs - adding Dr. Wasdell)
1. Thanks for making your helpful Science paper available for all.
2. I started the latest part of this thread (because Ken kindly referenced your
joint paper a few days ago) - so hope you don't mind my carrying my interest a
bit further.
Andrew and List:
I am one of the for-sure others. I find this document to be pretty slick
(lots of citations)- but almost entirely of a PR character. I believe none of
the authors (none of whom are shown either) have ever done any Biochar
experiments nor published anything in the
Ken, List etal:
I enjoyed the short video. Thanks to Ken for alerting us. I recommend looking
at four others by Near Zero with Mr/Dr. Simbeck- that also have some relation
to geoengineering. Here are more thoughts (on all five videos), with advance
apologies for turning the dialog to Biochar,
Ken, Julia, List
I only today re-read yesterday's note by Ken on Dr. Simbeck's video and saw
that I had missed that of Dr. Pongratz. I think hers is the more important; it
contains valuable new work.
Her video does not, however, talk about managing and harvesting from the
reforested area.
Ken; List and 2 ccs
This is to concur in toto with your several messages below in this thread.
However, I think this list serves a valuable function and should continue. But,
if continued, I think it would be wise to split it into separate SRM and CDR
components. I personally would want to be
John etal
See inserted notes below.
- Original Message -
From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, andrew lockley
andrew.lock...@gmail.com, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk,
John several lists (adding one) and ccs (adding two bccs, requesting special
help from experts):
I am still backlogged, so will try to add more later. But I know this is of
utmost importance to you - so bit more below.
- Original Message -
From: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk
John - Thanks for bringing this dialog back to climate sensitivity - which
obviously is a very key parameter for this list. You seem to have correctly
stated the present view of Dr. Hansen as being 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling.
But in your second citation to the work of Dr. Wasdell, Hansen's
Ken, list, and especially adding John Nissen [list individual most often
writing on Arctic ice disappearance and clathrate consequences]
1. This is to add a bit on Arctic Ice Volume (and some notes on methane) re
this message Ken kindly provided today re the Tietsche paper - which deals
Oliver, Greg etal
This is to support your idea below ... to distribute the rock powder on farm /
pasture / forest soils , which of course is exactly what Biochar (and no other
CDR/NET) does. At a recent meeting in Merida, Yucatan of the Society for
Ecological Restoration (SER), the joint
Duncan, Ning, list:
I wholeheartedly support the idea of sequestering through forestry products.
The analysis of them is straightforward. But the potential is obviously quite
limited compared to the GtC/yr values in your (Duncan's) recent report. So this
seems like a good opportunity to ask
Greg and list:
Being one of your more active biochar-in-the-soil friends on this list, who
is very weak in any biogeochem perspective , I had hoped someone else would
jump in re your last sentence below. I have been a little active in combining
Biochar and rock dust - but the (so far,
Greg, Ken (who gave first report earlier today and was on this panel) and List:
1. I have just read this report and think overall it is a positive
contribution. I just sent off a short Report Review written from a Biochar
perspective to the Yahoo Biochar-Policy list. I would be glad to send
Ken, Greg, List:
Few comments below.
- Original Message -
From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:43:32 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] BPC news
Sam (cc 2 lists):
1. First, thanks for forwarding my yesterday Geo message to Biochar-Policy.
You raise an important question on how to proceed with getting funds for
Biochar implementation. My immediate reaction is to support any official policy
that is trying to accelerate CDR
Stephen:
1, Thanks for alerting us (below) to this scale definition issue in the CBD
resolution re (both parts of) Geoengineering. Below, I will give one stab at
it. First, some more background. I found the official CBD action at:
http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299
2. The most
Andrew and list:
I found the full original article is more interesting/important than the news
article and the 70 some comments that were there a few minutes ago. The main
article (free) can be found at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044006/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044006.pdf
with two
William and list:
I happened to have received as separate notification of the DoD report you have
identified below and have skimmed the 175 pages. My link was to
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf - and seemed to download a
little faster than the one you give below.
The
Greg and list:
Thanks for keeping this on the front burner. And thanks to the many members of
this list for putting in a lot of hard work in preparing this report
I have only skimmed through the full new report (identified by Andrew a half
day ago (
List:
Here (IBI) is another (tax qualified) alternative for a donation that will
promote one of the technologies on the CDR side of geoengineering. Kelpie is an
IBI staffer.
Ron
- Original Message -
From: Kelpie Wilson kelp...@gmail.com
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Sent: Friday,
Ken and list:
1. I have enjoyed the Pongratz article sent recently which is the subject of
this NPR interview given below. In it, Dr. Pongratz, you and your co-authors
did a pretty good job of separating SRM from Geoengineering. (I don't think
the phrase CDR appeared, however) This is to
Ken, cc List
1. I like your analysis. It seems to be a new and needed analytical
methodology. Unfortunately, I think many will take it to be quite discouraging
about reaching carbon neutrality in the (2030?) time period proposed by Dr.
Hansen, even much later.
One bright spot however is
Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs:
1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well
done. Thanks for going to all that effort.
2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other
denier?)
3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr.
Eugene:
1. Apologies for using the term denier on this list - probably should not
have. But in this case I am still torn on the appropriate label. I'd like your
opinion in this specific case.
2. My defense is that I have recently tried to read more of Dr. Lindzen's
material and found that
Ken, Bhaskar, list
1. I will respond separately to Bhaskar (and therefor truncate this message re
ISIS and biomass/O2).
2. I will respond separately to Ken's defense of Greenpeace received after this
.
3. Re Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - I wish that we could treat her remarks as a joke. I find
her
Ken etal
1. This is mainly to say that Dr. Kallio was referencing Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, not
Greenpeace, re Oxygen depletion (your question below). I talked about her in my
last message and would rather not give her more publicity here on this same
topic. Anyone who can't find her quote, let me
John and ccs:
There are many estimates of available biomass, although not many for CDR
(through Biochar, BECCS, etc). A recent one (still not for CDR) that seems to
have been well done is in a new WF report at this site (especially its Section
5 and several appendices):
Josh:
I found your poster to be complete and accurate.
I hope you can find a way to squeeze in that the statements shown are for
primarily the SRM (and not the CDR) part of Geoengineering.
Ron
- Original Message -
From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com
To:
List:
1. I thought this list had a very useful dialog a few months ago on the CDR
technology called Direct Air Capture (DAC - sometimes Artificial Trees). I
have just become aware of an invitation-only meeting on this topic - hosted by
the group ISEEE at the University of Calgary on March 6
Mark, CC List
This is mainly to support your last paragraph below on fossil fuel corporation
responsibilities. It is also to comment on your book.
Both responses through further inserts below.
- Original Message -
From: Marc Gunther marc.gunt...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering
Greg, Ken, and list
I concur mostly with what Ken and Greg have below, but write to keep this
nomenclature topic alive. This especially responds to Dr. Caldeira (below) who
said:
We need a clear term that refers to these centralized industrial direct air
capture approaches and
Andrew (cc list)
Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I agree this biomass albedo effect is
potentially important for both SRM and CDRt. I had prepared a response to your
Sunday message and so will just also show it (below this new response).
I have not yet had time to get to the library
Ken, List etal (especially Russell Seitz and Greg Benford)
I hope it might be helpful to say a little more about Elzabeth Kolbert's
background and thoughts in the areas covered by the recommended audio. She has
written much on climate for the New Yorker - andused that to produce a fine
2006
Greg, list etal (acknowledging Josh adding thoughts on this topic)
1. As I have read this material, several things have stood out. First is that
the word Geoengineering continues to be a replacement for the phrase; Solar
Radiation Management (SRM) which is actually under discussion. I hate to
Greg etal:
Sorry for the long delay in this response. Since your note below, besides
reading your own Eagle story in the WELCOME book identified below, I have
read or skimmed the other 15 short stories. Yours was by far the most
interesting and well-done (from both a climate and
Andrew and List:
A few weeks ago, I received a hard copy of this 66 book in the mail, but with
sender unknown. I have been meaning to send this list some thoughts on the
book, so this is a good chance to thank the unknown sender. I recommend the
book - for reasons other than that it is free.
Russell and list:
In my just-sent message on a new Geo-engineering overview summary e-book, I
meant to add that author Risto Isomaki had not included Bright Water. (Too
new in the technical literature for a book that was updated in early 2011). But
there is a section there on the albedo
List and Drs. Rau and Caldeira :
1. I can agree with the reactions below to some of the material in Dr.
Blackstock's Nature editorial and because I think we are on several important
topics.
a). To answer Dr. Rau's (rhetorical?) question - (obviously) politicians are
(unfortunately) waiting
Ken and list and Andrew:
1. This is partly to thank you for today's letter from yourself and nine others
to Secretary Clinton re the Keystone Pipeline. For others - this is entitled
Nation’s Top Climate Scientists: Omitting Climate Change From Keystone XL
Pipeline Review Is ‘Neither Wise
Greg and ccs:
This is partly to support your concern about Direct Air Capture (DAC), since we
are hearing only part of the OM portion of costs. We need to hear more, but I
believe the $100/ton CO2 number (likely equivalent to about $300/ton of
charcoal) is encouragingly lower than what we
Greg and list
Thanks for the link reminder. I'll look into the ocean numbers more..
(I repeat that) I agree with all that you are saying about the large natural
fluxes - and our ability to tweak them. I'd appreciate hearing anything
quantitative about the potential size of the tweaked fluxes
Greg:
Thanks for the additional information. On the AMEG and Biochar-policy lists
there has been quite a bit of discussion on combining olivine dust with
biochar. The economics of olivine seem quite competitive if the transportation
distance is not too large - but this is not my area .
I
Greg etal
I agree that McLaren has helped move the dialog forward; he and FoE deserve our
thanks. Of course, I think Biochar could move positively in all four displayed
parameters displayed in the Figure 3 you recommend.
In justification of my concern that Biochar is under-valued, I urge
List:
1. I found this 70+ slide Ppt by Kevin Anderson (the attachment to Andrew's
posting about 14 hours ago) to be a most interesting presentation. It suffers
by having no voice. I have not yet found when or where it was presented.
In following up, I found that his (and Alice Bows') 2011
Drs. Gordon, Bhaskar and list:
1. This is first to follow up on Dr. Bhaskar's request to Dr. Gordon, hoping
that he will answer his yesterday-question below asking you to explain the :
variety of possibilities to explain the warming ... [I have highlighted it and
3 others below]
I believe
Andrew and list (cc Andy Rivkin)
This is to urge replacement of your controlled burns, bulldozers, etc. in
your final sentence,
Or would management of fire on the ground with controlled burns, bulldozers,
etc . be better?
with biopower, biofuels, biochar , etc : Controlled burns and
Mark, Greg, List
I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at
your site.
But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to
your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar
over your CCS option as it
Mark (cc Greg, list)
See insert responses below.
- Original Message -
From: markcap...@podenergy.org
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:59:17 AM
Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural
Mark etal
See below.
- Original Message -
From: markcap...@podenergy.org
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 6:13:36 AM
Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient
Andrew, cc list
I have just finished reading (closer to skimming) the new BFW report on
BECCS that you have identified today/below. For any geo list members who are
defenders of BECCS, I would love to hear your reactions - as the BFW group has
similarly (since 2007) slammed biochar. I
List - with ccs to Greg and others (including at ETC)
I write mainly to bring the CDR technologies into our discussion about ETC's
views. I hope the following will also be considered as an input into the
ethics/philosophy discussion that is taking place simultaneously on this list.
I view
Andrew etal
Thanks for catching this interesting news release.
The part of most interest to me was this fifth paragraph:
“Biochar has been promoted as a win-win-win solution,” Harpole said. “You get
energy, you improve soil conditions and increase crop yield.”
I will try to alert these
Russell and list:
Perhaps your comment was meant to wonder why we are being told of this three
years later by Andrew. In Andrew's defense, let me note several other factors:
a. This (Nov. 5, 2009) was just put up a few days ago by a Mr. Jim Lee.
b. Looking at this will lead you to two more
Bhaskar:
This is to thank you for you note below - and to hope that we can keep your
ocean-pertinent observations on the recent EPA document alive for further
discussion.
My interest in this oceans topic relates to biochar - almost always land-based.
I have been hopeful that the 50% of
Bhaskar and list
There is still a good bit I am not understanding, so I would appreciate some
citations. But the main one I am not understanding is in the bolded two words
in this pair of your sentences:
When Diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish the oxygen level increases,
since
Bhaskar and list:
1. a. The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today
(and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556
b. Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty strong
Chris:
Your message below has caused me to delay responding to other messages in this
thread. I found the 68 page report to be new (to me), very well written, and
one I will now follow up on closely. I found (p 61 (or 63/68) ) that Professor
Jones also has a 2011 text book that I have ordered
Greg et al
See inserts below.
- Original Message -
From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
Cc: joshic...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Doug Karlen
doug.kar...@ars.usda.gov
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012
Stewart and Andrew
This being exclusively about BECCS, I answer this before going to Stuart's two
earlier messages today re biochar and CROPS. Few inserts - mainly in Andrew's
message.
- Original Message -
From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu
To: andrew lockley
Stuart (with ccs)
It seems best to at least start to answer both of your responses at one time.
So I bring here your earlier response today with a few inserts: You wrote (with
my inserts):
The 2009 paper I wrote with Benford was a quantitative analysis of the ocean
sequestration ideas of
Andrew and list (adding two new ccs):
1. I found the full article (for free) at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2165372
It is quite complete - 46 pages, 265 footnotes (a good many fewer references -
but a lot)
2. Here are the final five paragraphs:
IV. TOWARD
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
