.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
*Peter Fiekowsky*
*Foundation for Climate Restoration <http://f4cr.org/> **Founder and
recall from the podcast), from the time this
> regulation became fully effective compared to prior years, as a direct
> result of the loss of sulfur emissions across these (very large) ocean
> regions.
> Best,
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM Peter Fiekowsky wro
22 at 12:59 AM Ye Tao wrote:
> No Peter, this is not argument for restoring CO2 below 300ppm; lack of a
> logical connection notwithstanding, carbon capture at scale simply
> infeasible before we are all fried.
>
> Ye
> On 3/1/2022 9:15 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>
>
; agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern Ocean to cool
> Antarctica.
>
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>> Robert-
>> It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably
>> everyone on this list agrees wi
emergency security response against extreme weather.
> Regards
> Robert 🌷
>
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 1:54 am, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>> Ye-
>> What does carbon capture have to do with climate restoration?
>> Carbon capture is for enhanced oil recovery and for s
, please refer back to the discuss thread we had on this
>> topic a couple of weeks ago and contribute with a properly cited,
>> evidence-based response.
>>
>> Ye
>> On 3/2/2022 9:53 AM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>>
>> Ye-
>> What does carbon capture have to
lecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and
> serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent
> and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade.
>
> Robert Tulip
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>
&
r consequence of
> global warming that will be with of for centuries. This is the $5.9
> trillion benefit only Thermodynamic Geoengineering provides.
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Fiekowsky
> *Sent:* June 14, 2022 4:10 PM
> *To:* Jim Baird ; Tom Goreau <
> gor...@globalcoral
Robert-
Good point about the scientists uniformly calling for delaying
implementation, essentially indefinitely, since they don't offer any
criteria for actually starting to restore safe methane levels and protect
against a methane burst.
Do you think this is an ethical issue? Doubling the methan
framework, etc.
>> can all be relevant, but is it not the choices that policymakers are (or
>> are not) making decisions where the ethics enter in--for everyone but the
>> elected decisionmakers, what they can do is mainly try to present useful
>> information to decisionmake
es wrote:
>
>
> Again, how does this relate to CDR?
>
> CH4 is not CO2.
>
> The many other groups that have been CCed in this thread are wide open to
> any and all chatter about any and all subjects that can pop into people's
> minds. This list is about Carbon Dioxide R
gt; Where there is chlorophyll in the ocean there tend to be marine clouds
> also, which provide an additional cooling effect. Thus, a beneficial
> feedback cycle is established, or at least the opposite destructive
> feedback cycle is curbed.
>
>
>
> The addition of iron to the oce
all:
>https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
>- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
>- 30-minute Zoom call:
>https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
>
>
>
> Follow us:
>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/Institute-f
Ron-
Pardon me for asking, but:
1. What exactly do you mean by “all hands on deck”? Who? Where? Why? When?
2. If you were successful, what outcome would we see?
Nevermind the how. We know a heck of a lot about SAI, MCB, and other
techniques. Please explain the who, what, when, where, and w
implemented?
If that’s true, then now is the time to propose a specific defensible plan.
I discuss a plan in my book. If you aren’t going to come up with a specific
plan, who will? (and why do you think they might?)
Peter
From: Ron Baiman
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 2:51 PM
To: Peter Fiekowsky
Ron-
Your assertion is ambiguous: do you mean 6% emission reduction per year, or
6% GHG level reduction per year?
6% annual emission reduction could be easily accomplished with WW III or a
major recession, even with today's economic regime.
Achieving a 6% annual reduction would not leave us with
Herb or Michael- Thank you for the recording. I skimmed the video and couldn't
find the meat. What were your two top take-aways from that 90 minute discussion?
Was there new information or a specific recommendation to a specific person or
group coming out of the Overshoot Commission?
Peter
From
>
>
>
> I have two questions.
>
>
>
> Do you see iron chloride as a viable initial distribution method alongside
> iron sulphate?
>
>
>
> Do you agree we need to tackle the immediate albedo problem of the
> darkening of the planet in coordination with the carbon
SRM were
> considered separately?
>
> • Global
> • Arctic and Antarctic only (local/regional)
>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
>
> On Dec 22, 2023, at 12:28 AM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
>
> 
> Robert-
>
> Thank you for helping promote
Climate change can be solved--through Climate Restoration
Peter
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:55 AM Carol Cespedes
wrote:
> Action now can restore.
>
> Carol Cespedes
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:30 AM Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <
> bmel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Good review Herb and yo
20 matches
Mail list logo
