<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: OCO satellite lost, GOSAT gets &#8220;first light&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/</link>
	<description>Think.  It ain&#039;t illegal yet...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:32:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Weekly Carboholic: ACCCE hired Bonner, but didn&#8217;t notify Congress of forgeries when they were discovered &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-95382</link>
		<dc:creator>The Weekly Carboholic: ACCCE hired Bonner, but didn&#8217;t notify Congress of forgeries when they were discovered &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-95382</guid>
		<description>[...] a letter expressing their support for the replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) that failed to reach orbit earlier this year. The letter says that a replacement OCO is necessary for independent verification of carbon [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a letter expressing their support for the replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) that failed to reach orbit earlier this year. The letter says that a replacement OCO is necessary for independent verification of carbon [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: r.elizabeth.m</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-63739</link>
		<dc:creator>r.elizabeth.m</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-63739</guid>
		<description>Excellent treatment of the biochar/agricultural issues, Brian.  As a plant guy, it seems utterly nonsensical to dump agricultural waste into the ocean considering our current issues with soil fertility.  

Another name for biochar is tera petra and it may well be a soil super substance (at least the pre-contact Amazonian cultures thought a lot of it).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent treatment of the biochar/agricultural issues, Brian.  As a plant guy, it seems utterly nonsensical to dump agricultural waste into the ocean considering our current issues with soil fertility.  </p>
<p>Another name for biochar is tera petra and it may well be a soil super substance (at least the pre-contact Amazonian cultures thought a lot of it).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Angliss</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-63737</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Angliss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-63737</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s what I thought you meant, but the traditional definition of cloud seeding is dumping silver iodide into clouds in order to increase local precipitation.

We&#039;re already creating clouds mechanically via aircraft contrails that act as clouds globally.  The scary thing about these is that they&#039;re suppressing global temperatures by a significant amount, as shown in this paper: http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf.  Fewer planes in the air during the day boosts temperatures significantly and quickly (within days).  But this shows that boosting albedo does have an effect and would work if only there were ways to do this that didn&#039;t have really nasty unintended consequences.

After all, jet travel produces large amounts of CO2, dumping sulfur dioxide into the air destroys ozone, and we have no clue what the effects of pouring that much salt spray into the air will do over the long run.  It&#039;s an interesting enough idea that it&#039;s worth more study, however, and maybe a couple of demonstration projects as well.

After all, sometimes the only way to understand what the consequences of doing something are is to test it at small scales.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s what I thought you meant, but the traditional definition of cloud seeding is dumping silver iodide into clouds in order to increase local precipitation.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re already creating clouds mechanically via aircraft contrails that act as clouds globally.  The scary thing about these is that they&#8217;re suppressing global temperatures by a significant amount, as shown in this paper: <a href="http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf</a>.  Fewer planes in the air during the day boosts temperatures significantly and quickly (within days).  But this shows that boosting albedo does have an effect and would work if only there were ways to do this that didn&#8217;t have really nasty unintended consequences.</p>
<p>After all, jet travel produces large amounts of CO2, dumping sulfur dioxide into the air destroys ozone, and we have no clue what the effects of pouring that much salt spray into the air will do over the long run.  It&#8217;s an interesting enough idea that it&#8217;s worth more study, however, and maybe a couple of demonstration projects as well.</p>
<p>After all, sometimes the only way to understand what the consequences of doing something are is to test it at small scales.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Djerrid</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-63736</link>
		<dc:creator>Djerrid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-63736</guid>
		<description>&quot;Cloud seeding&quot; was just a sloppy shorthand for increasing the reflectivity of clouds. You can read all about it in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal article here: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf

It basically means using ocean water to mechanically create clouds since those types of clouds would have higher albedo (reflectiveness). AKA, manufacture sea salt spray to change the way clouds form over the ocean to increase their reflectivity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Cloud seeding&#8221; was just a sloppy shorthand for increasing the reflectivity of clouds. You can read all about it in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal article here: <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>It basically means using ocean water to mechanically create clouds since those types of clouds would have higher albedo (reflectiveness). AKA, manufacture sea salt spray to change the way clouds form over the ocean to increase their reflectivity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Angliss</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-63735</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Angliss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-63735</guid>
		<description>What precisely do you mean by &quot;cloud seeding&quot; in this case?  There&#039;s at least two different definitions I can think of that may apply here, and I can&#039;t agree or disagree without knowing which definition you&#039;re talking about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What precisely do you mean by &#8220;cloud seeding&#8221; in this case?  There&#8217;s at least two different definitions I can think of that may apply here, and I can&#8217;t agree or disagree without knowing which definition you&#8217;re talking about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Djerrid</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/25/the-weekly-carboholic-co-satellite-lost-gosat-gets-first-light/comment-page-1/#comment-63734</link>
		<dc:creator>Djerrid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=7784#comment-63734</guid>
		<description>Again, great post Brian.

There are a ton of different geoengenering schemes out there to lower global temperatures. The journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/georank.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cost/benefit analysis&lt;/a&gt; of a bunch of them; with the cost being the amount of watts it took per degree of global temp reduction (the benefit).  


Of course, you&#039;ll need to make your planet-saving decisions on more than just energy input costs, but it is good to see how effective each is when compared to each other. For instance, biochar, which you mentioned above, gives you much more bang for the buck than fertilizing our oceans. But both are dwarfed by cloud seeding. And then you&#039;ll have to think about all of the unintended consequences, reversibility, and ability to be tweaked each approach gives.

And then of course there are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/79410/Keepin-real-with-geothermal-engineering&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;really crazy ideas&lt;/a&gt;, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008544401_warm21.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;huge water sprays&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.superchimney.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;three mile high chimneys&lt;/a&gt;. 

It will be fun to see what approaches the world rallies behind in the coming decades.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again, great post Brian.</p>
<p>There are a ton of different geoengenering schemes out there to lower global temperatures. The journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics did a <a href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/georank.html" rel="nofollow">cost/benefit analysis</a> of a bunch of them; with the cost being the amount of watts it took per degree of global temp reduction (the benefit).  </p>
<p>Of course, you&#8217;ll need to make your planet-saving decisions on more than just energy input costs, but it is good to see how effective each is when compared to each other. For instance, biochar, which you mentioned above, gives you much more bang for the buck than fertilizing our oceans. But both are dwarfed by cloud seeding. And then you&#8217;ll have to think about all of the unintended consequences, reversibility, and ability to be tweaked each approach gives.</p>
<p>And then of course there are the <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/79410/Keepin-real-with-geothermal-engineering" rel="nofollow">really crazy ideas</a>, like <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008544401_warm21.html" rel="nofollow">huge water sprays</a> and <a href="http://www.superchimney.org/" rel="nofollow">three mile high chimneys</a>. </p>
<p>It will be fun to see what approaches the world rallies behind in the coming decades.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

