To place Veli's post in context, here's a discussion of recent SLR
research. I think the commentator's conclusion is quite balanced. Graphs
and links in online version. Sorry but Hansen's paper can't be retrieved at
present. :
a version of the Hansen paper in question is available
herehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
It contains the quotes Staniford is using verbatim.
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:58:19 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:
To place Veli's post in context,
Michael,
While deep seawater in the ocean does indeed contain a great deal of
nutrients, it also contains high levels of dissolved inorganic carbon
derived from the degradation of sinking organic matter generated in surface
waters. Thus, bringing deep seawater to the surface will lead to
Folks,
To offset the global mean temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 content, you need to deflect back to space about 2% of sunlight
reaching the Earth.
This is often a hard number to get your head around.
Well, it turns out that the area of the US is almost 10 million km2
Extracting CO2 from seawater would be effective, but still costly, esp with
fuel
production. Biology also does this extraction, but scaling this up (OIF) could
get messy and have unwanted side effects. It would seem much simpler and safer
to chemically consume excess ocean CO2 by converting
