Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

Airships were considered by McClellan et al. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019 This report needs revision - as later analyses have shown unanticipated limitations with wing design (based on my interpretation of comments made at CEC17). Furthermore, their analysis of

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

I think that the best way to go is to use airships. Blimps. Dirigables, Zeppelins, Hindenburg with He…Huge lift capacity, extremely high altitudes, easily automated controls… Regards, Paul From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

artin *Sent:* 19 October 2017 15:09 *To:* david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk; macma...@cds.caltech.edu; 'Andrew Lockley'; geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Subject:* RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC Ok, I should have said “these materials don’t naturally exist in large quantities in the strat

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

Sent: 19 October 2017 15:09 To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk; macma...@cds.caltech.edu; 'Andrew Lockley'; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC Ok, I should have said “these materials don’t naturally exist in large quantities in the stratosphere

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

eering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC The upper atmosphere has had an abundance of chloride and calcium ions present for millions and possibly billions of years. These chemicals do exist naturally. This comes about because sea water contains these ions. The t

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas MacMartin Sent: 19 October 2017 12:25 To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk; 'Andrew Lockley'; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC I don’t know how you

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Sevier Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:21 AM To: 'Andrew Lockley' <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC Dear Andrew, Neither calcium chloride or c

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

a problem if you were trying the create an aerosol in the high > atmosphere from a single spinning disk. > > > > Dave > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 18 October 2017 14:35 > *To:* David Sevier > *Subject:* RE: [geo] Engineering d

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

(0)208-288 0129 From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 October 2017 19:08 To: David Sevier Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC How are you getting the propellant down? Pls answer on list On 17 Oct 2017 18:41, "David S

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

)208 288 0128 Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129 This email is private and confidential From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 October 2017 21:18 To: Doug MacMynowski Cc: geoengineering; David Sevier; Hugh Hunt Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

n argument for bounding uncertainty. >> I think it is rather premature to say one makes “more sense” than another >> right now, as there are different (and somewhat non-commensurate) concerns. >> >> >> >> *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> geoen

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

(and somewhat non-commensurate) concerns. > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *David Sevier > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 1:46 PM > *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com > *Cc:* 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Sevier Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 1:46 PM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC I am struggling to find the beginning of this thread

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

sense than sulphuric acid. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau Sent: 16 October 2017 17:23 To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC But as to the pile of papers, just think

Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

But as to the pile of papers, just think of the carbon storage! G Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 15, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > From what I gather, it seems we have a bit of engineering drama. Apparently, > you can't just swap aircraft engines and do

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

Hi Andrew, I personally don’t see this as a problem (and I’ve worked a bit with Wake on question). The direct costs of getting stuff to the stratosphere are not going to be the long-term barrier to deployment (and might not even be the biggest costs of deployment, assuming one needs to