Geoengineering List (with some ccs): Earlier today, Peter Read used my
name (Ron Larson - now a new member of this list) in connection with
Biochar - saying / "//despite Royal Society nonsense based apparently on
a submission from a scientifically ill-qualified NGO - Ron may care to
co
Simon and Geoengineering List:
It would take much too much space to explain in detail what I and many
other Biochar supporters found wrong with the Royal Society's treatment
of Biochar. Let me ask you to instead read a lengthy message #1158 I
wrote on 4 September on the deficiencies I saw, giv
ops
>> [PRESUMABLY HE/SHE MEANS CROP RESIDUES] for renewable fuels would be in
>> conflict with using agricultural land for the production of food AND/OR
>> BIOFUELS" !! Beyond the circular non-sequitur, the sentence is about
>> biofuels and not about biochar at a
To List with 3 ccs:
Having a prior engagement, I could not respond to Ken's note below until
this PM.
I will respond separately to the second message from Simon . The
remainder of my response are shown as inserts in Ken's note, mostly at
the end..
Peter Read wrote:
> Ken, Simon
>
> As it was
Ken - below is the requested check on your numbers
Ken Caldeira wrote:
> Total land area is around 1.5 x 10^14 m2 and grazing might cover 25%
> of this (Asner et al, 2004), so there must be an error in your
> calculation.
*RWL: Ken is speaking here to Stephen Salter's grazing land estimate of
ow scores that the RS
has accorded Biochar.
The information at the IBI site is much more extensive. I therefore
would be greatly interested in anything there (or anywhere) that either
justifies the RS handling of Biochar or smacks of an unprofessional or
non-scientific boosterism. My belief is that RS w
List - but primarily Peter and Ken
This is to extend Peter Read's last message on Biochar issues. The
headings below are mine - not in Peter's original.
Peter Read wrote (I believe primarily talking to Ken):
> * (mostly large) numbers>*
>
> So grazing and pasture broadly interprete
Geoengineering and Biochar Lists (sent separately):
This is to link together three topics I found in the 25 Sept issue
of Science, which I received 2 days ago.
1. The cover and the theme of this issue is on CCS. Good material
from what I know (not being expert in CCS). I'd like to he
ith that data, I would be practicing a lot of
sequestration independent of carbon credits. I doubt any CCS approach
will be cheaper. I am still convinced we can talk reasonably of many
wedges - and pretty quickly. Glad you asked the question and I support
your call for a new review by the Ro
Andrew - see few responses below
Andrew Lockley wrote:
> I'm looking to address the problem of runaway climate change, which
> may potentially result from methane excursions from clathrates and
> permafrost. I have a few a few quick questions, which people on this
> list may be able to help with
John (cc Michael and list):
Thanks for the lead to Michael's blog and from Michael's to others.
Fortunately a more favorable treatment of Biochar - including a nice
comment about Sir Richard Branson's support for Biochar.
I hope we can have more discussion on this list of the
appr
Manu (cc list)
Your attachment was very helpful. I would add (and will try to find
references, but others may have them readily):
a. arctic ice thickness. (This is dropping more rapidly than areal
extent; clearly they both have to go to zero at the same time.)
b. rate of glacial retreat
Alan, Dan, Ken etal:
I haven't heard much discussion on this list of last Saturday's many
thousands of events put on by the new 350.org group. I only went to two
events (in Denver) and in both the only technology mentioned by the
organizers was Biochar. I submit/claim that is the least
Jim:
I like your analysis; I can see that you and etcgroup have given
considerable thought to the possible failings of Geoengineering. Through
this reply note, I want to explore whether you can agree there may be
exceptions. Specifically I want to look at the Biochar exception. At
your websit
A number of people in this
> community have been bitten by opening up to them and then cut off at
> the knees later-- in particular Victor Smetacek.
>
> Dan
>
> On Oct 30, 10:16 pm, Ron Larson <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>
Andrew - cc list:
I don't mean to sound flip - and maybe you were asking for this
response: We already have the desired fusion machine: our sun.
The two reasons that Biochar can work in the big way that Peter
Read has commented on a few hours ago are 1) that the sun's energy
Geoengineering list:
1. With apologies if previously noted, I recommend: "Reducing
abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions " , Mario Molina etal.
Free download at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/0
Ken (cc List):
1. As you (but probably not enough others) are probably well aware,
Joe Romm complimented you and placed an unpublished 2002 paper by
yourself and Marty Hoffert on his web site today. See
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Warming-burning-091018.pdf.
Dave (cc Ken and list):
Thanks to Dave.
1. Since I doubt very much that the computation shown included
anything on CO2 effects, I hope Ken can weigh in on this, per the
discussion last week re:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Warming-burning-091018.pdf
2.
John - Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I think I can speak for
quite a few others in the "Biochar tribe" when I offer below some
comments on what you have written. I do wholeheartedly agree with the
thrust that we are not doing enough today.
John Nissen wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I want to fo
Ken (with ccs) :
Thanks for attaching the Archer paper for which you were a co-author.
The paper looks well done - and I think it great that the team was able
to get nine models working on the same scenarios - especially on a
voluntary, unfunded basis. We will all look at such a paper for our o
Geoengineering list: I am sorry to pass on the attached sad news about
the death of Peter Read.
Ron
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from t
John and list:
I agree that this was an important interview for advancing
geoengineering (Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite
writers/analysts/interviewers). My main objection was that Fareed or
his show producers seemed to not be aware of the limitations of SRM. By
this I mean that th
Professor Salter and Geoengineering List
1. Thanks for the leads at your "site below...signature". One
problem - I could not get the one labeled "McNeil Downtube" to open, so
you might check. It was nice to see that Nathan Myrhvold is/was a
sponsor for this interesting work. I look for
Ken and List:
From the perspective of a Biochar advocate trying to represent what
Peter Reed might have said, I have three questions on the recent AGU
statement on Geoengineering..
1. Since Biochar was not specifically mentioned, was that omission
intentional?
2. Since Biochar
overall
effectiveness, that it got less space than some might have hoped in
recent summary documents.
Yours,
David
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Larson
Sent: January 14, 2010 1:58 PM
To: geoengineeri
Ernie:
Could you expand on this sentence from your response today:
/"My personal view is that ocean productivity is the real key to
practical geoengineering by way of CO2 removal."
/
Ron
arcolo...@aol.com wrote:
Hello, Dan,
I think we are in really deep water here. The marine scienti
Dr. Smolker, Nando (cc List and few others; keeping the geoengineering
list this time):
1. I am taking the same tack again - applauding Nando first and then
only replying to each part of the material supplied by Dr. Smolker. But
this time, I find little fault in what Dr. Smolker wrote. Ho
Biochar policy list (with ccs)
A.I found this hard to read the first time, so here are the six
short statements that Nando broke apart as indicated and rebutted (with
skill) each in depth The numbers were inserted by me.
1."Here is what the United Nations Environment Program states:
that the Asilomar conference should never have occurred. To
repeat, I think the only thing that would have made sense was if SRM
and CDR were discussed separately - an dwould love to hear why "apples
and oranges" were OK to compare.
Ron
Ron Larson wrote (few hours ago):
Breiter wrote:
Ron,
I don't know who wrote this, or what UNEP publication it is contained
in. Also, the original post was about this
article http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/23-4 rather than the
conference itself.
Nando
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Ron Larson <mailto:rongretlar...
List with three ccs
This is to again raise the topic of geoengineering nomenclature
1. From the middle of p 7 of the IISD paper (which I agree was generally
well done):
/ "We can generally categorize geoengineering efforts into two types:
those that seek to regulate the temperature, and those
means. Should we
instead make a distinction between artificial and natural (albeit on
an industrialised scale) CDR?
Thank you very much for your response, I hope I cleared up a few
things. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Regards,
Bjornar
On Apr 17, 11:48 pm, Ron Larson wrote:
ield trial going
on now off Monterey Bay.
Gregory Benford
-Original Message-
From: Ron Larson
To: begedenis...@balsillieschool.ca
Cc: geoengineering
Sent: Sun, Apr 25, 2010 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic Council Strategy
* Bjornar. I agree with what you have written.
Re rap
s - but is perhaps more
likely to make headway.
In hope that the truth will out, Oliver.
*From:* Joshua Horton [mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 27 April 2010 18:01
*To:* John Nissen
*Cc:* Geoengineering; bioc...@yahoogroups.com; Ron Larson; Julie
;s rights, rather, countries would sign up to
a forest management plan voluntarily, and be paid for adhering to the
agreement. A key aspect would be respect for the rights of indigenous and
other forest dwellers.
BTW I am on neither the geo-eng nor biochar lists - but if anyone want to
post th
Geoengineering list:
1. In order to help those who might be looking for what this NAS
group might have said about Biochar, the answer is they used the word
twice in a single sentence on p 235 (out of 292pp). This is all they
could find to say:
/ "Incorporating biochar (charcoal from
Dr. Robock (with ccs, and adding Dr. Seitz)
Thanks for early and full comments, with your (unexpected) already prepared
response to Dr.
Seitz' SRM proposal for "Bright Water". This is mainly to express hope that
Dr. Seitz has already been thinking of a response.
I put the albedo optio
Alvia, Joshua, etal:
I do no know whether the bill will go anywhere. But I think it would
have a lot more support if it was all-inclusive. That is, support for all
forms of CDR.
This is like calling for support of vertical-axis wind machines or CdTe
photovoltaics. Picking winners
Oliver and list
This below sounds to me like a meeting to further investigate topics like
permaculture and composting. These are carbon negative, but measured in
decades, not centuries and millennia. There is little impact on energy supply
and not likely to involve REDD+.
Nevertheless,
Oliver
Thanks for forwarding this. I conclude BECCS is ahead of Biochar in a few
senses, but Biochar is moving a lot faster. The difference has to be made up
in annual, continuing benefits from Biochar - whereas BECCS has mostly costs (
except where EOR is possible). EOR must negate the ca
pparently false !!
>>
>> see:http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.asp
>>
>> ---
>>
>> On a similar note, DOE has largely abandon its hydrogen car effort. Who
>> remembers
>> FreedomCar?http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/freedomcar_partnership.html
&g
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 16, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
> Hi Andrew—On your objection about the biology of bright water, I’d like to
> better understand your concern. How do you think the effect of the bubbles on
> a clear day would compare to the effects of a thick cloud cover
Josh, Ken, List
I also am perplexed. By "out year", I meant several things: increased soil
productivity, reduced fertilizer requirements, reduced irrigation needs and
likely less N2O release. Possibly for millennia, certainly centuries.
Energy provision follows from the desirable use
Tim and list
I should have mentioned both BECCS and enhanced weathering in my list of
comparisons. But neither violate the twin claims re Biochar I am making:
energy release (carbon neutral) and out-year (some carbon-neutral, some
carbon-negative) benefits.
I also am not saying these othe
Josh:
Yes to both parts of your second sentence. The supplier of the Biochar
certainly has a continuing responsibility as to the source of the Biochar.
Also the user has a responsibility to test before applying Biochar
inappropriately. Testing is easy.
The process and need for indemnif
Geoengineering list, especially Andrea Gammon
I mainly write to ask if the University of Montana and other Universities
doing ethics studies are considering "Geoengineering" to be identical to SRM -
or whether the term also includes CDR. Of the dozen or so messages so far in
this thread, I ca
Graham and list:
I had not previously been aware of "wickingbed", but at your URL which
deals with humilfication, the only citation was to work by a friend Dr. James
Amonette -well known in biochar analysis. See one note (among many) coupling
Jim and humification and biochar at
http://ww
Mr. Hori, cc list
1. Thanks for providing the most interesting summary. Japan's long and
important biochar history of Japan presumably helps explain your own long
interest in the nuclear-biochar combination. I would greatly appreciate
learning more on the "60%" value in your key third bul
49 matches
Mail list logo
