Thanks for the comment. I can tell you one thing about thorium: it’s advocates are passionate! And, yes, I have mentioned China’s thorium experiment as part of an overview article I did on their nuclear efforts:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-goes-nuclear-to-avoid-coal-burning

I haven’t been able to write on it for Sci Am as of yet because, frankly, there hasn’t been anything new to say other than the efforts to revive public support. As you probably know, Sci Am has been around for a long time (oldest continuously published magazine in the US) so we’ve covered the thorium possibility quite a bit in the past. In fact, some argue that we gave the Chinese the idea to come and collect Weinberg’s research on the subject since the US wasn’t pursuing it.

But perhaps I’m unaware of some new technical developments? Thanks again. – db

This post caught my eye as it involves CO2 in China.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences recently selected the thorium-fueled molten salt reactor for the research and development of sustainable clean energy (link below).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html

Have you written any articles that discuss the implications of the development of advanced thorium reactors?

Please contact me if you would like details regarding this technology. It looks like a real game-changer, with respect to both how spectacularly profitable it will be and how little waste is produced in comparison to fossil fuels and current nuclear plants.

I think it would be in our society’s best interest to get the word out on this one in a big way before (A) greenhouse gas accumulation becomes irreversible, or (B) China gets too far ahead of us in the development of the technology.

Jordan Evans
Department of Nuclear Engineering
Texas A&M University

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/LBNL-5919e-REPORT.pdf

Hope that helps! – db

Thanks for writing and good luck with your studies. I’d be happy for you to cite me (and would love to see the final result):

I think the most profound implication of climate change is that we have become the dominant species on the planet. If that wasn’t apparent before now, it certainly should be as we change the very mix of the life-giving atmospheric gases wreathing the planet. We have similar profound impacts on basic biogeochemical cycles: carbon, obviously, but also nitrogen, and even water. Given that we also have the possibility of being conscious about our role, it’s also high time we start taking responsibility for our actions and proactively managing our impacts.

But the most compelling reason for taking action on climate change remains human suffering. The actions of folks in rich countries are starting to impact the livelihood of folks in poor countries. It’s as simple as that, though, of course, that doesn’t discount many of the other compelling reasons for taking action: species extinction, loss of unique biomes like Arctic sea ice, coastal flooding from sea level rise and the like.

Hope that helps.

My name is Ari and I am a second year student at the University of Toronto. I am in a specialist program for Physical & Environmental Geography and currently writing a research paper regarding climate change from an environmental, economical, ethical perspective.

I came across many of your articles and found them insightful and eloquent. Needless to say you will be cited multiple times in my paper! I would love if I could reference you directly (in addition to your articles) in this project.

The questions I am most interested in hearing your response to are:
In your opinion, what is/are the most compelling argument/s in favor of taking action on climate change?
Moreover, what are the most profound implications of climate change?

Any response would be greatly appreciated, and I thank you in advance for your help!! Have a great day.

Ari

And “cellular” definitely means “of (diatom) cells” in this case. Long strands of material made from dead diatom cells was sinking to the bottom.

Thanks for the questions and good luck! – db

I am a Singaporean student who’s currently conducting a research on geo-engineering experiments. I recently came across a Scientific American article by you, “Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink”. It was very enlightening. As a non-native English speaker, I encountered some problems when reading it, but my instructors gave me different opinions. So I wonder if you could kindly help me.

In the third paragraph, your story says, “The problem for scientists is that oceanic waters tend to mix, which makes monitoring and delineating an experiment in the ocean challenging.” I’m wondering whether the word “delineate” means “describe” or “trace the outline of”.

And in the last paragraph but one, the story says, “… which… tend to form long strands of cellular slime…” I’m wondering whether the world “cellular” means “of (diatom) cells” or “porous”.

Could you kindly help me out?

Thanks in advance for your enlightenment.

Best regards,

Andrea Shum

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=halloween-chocolate-more-trick-than-11-10-30

As for why some reject global warming, the main objection appears to be a distaste for the likely solutions, such as eliminating fossil fuels or global treaties. But it’s a broad spectrum.