[geo] Re: Geoengineering | Giving What We Can

2012-12-12 Thread David Lewis 
the site in question ("Giving What We Can") has a Climate Change 
page
 which 
refers its visitors to Bjorn Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus 2012"  
websitewhen explaining 
how the author of the "Giving What We Can" climate change 
and geoengineering pages decided geoengineering was a good thing the people 
the website encourages people who want to donate 10% of their income to 
worthy causes should try to fund.  Lomborg's horsebleep list of the top 20 
things his august committee decided were the most important things they 
would spend $75 billion on, if they had it, did not include one penny for 
mitigation of emissions of any greenhouse gas. (The top 20 list is near the 
bottom of this 
webpage.)  
Lomborg's 
panel didn't think one dime of their $75 billion should go into encouraging 
deployment or even R&D into any form of low carbon energy.  *Geoengineering 
R&D* ranked #12 on the Lomborg Top 20.   

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:01:25 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:
>
> Posters note: This is of interest
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KGkbU_dE_XwJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering | Giving What We Can

2012-12-12 Thread Andrew Lockley 
Unpleasant or deluded people give lots of money to good causes.

If deniers and right wing crazies want to fund legitimate climate science,
why not pitch for their money?

A
 On Dec 12, 2012 10:55 AM, "David Lewis"  wrote:

> the site in question ("Giving What We Can") has a Climate Change 
> page
>  which
> refers its visitors to Bjorn Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus 2012"
>  website  when
> explaining how the author of the "Giving What We Can" climate change and
> geoengineering pages decided geoengineering was a good thing the people the
> website encourages people who want to donate 10% of their income to worthy
> causes should try to fund.  Lomborg's horsebleep list of the top 20 things
> his august committee decided were the most important things they would
> spend $75 billion on, if they had it, did not include one penny for
> mitigation of emissions of any greenhouse gas. (The top 20 list is near the
> bottom of this 
> webpage.)  
> Lomborg's
> panel didn't think one dime of their $75 billion should go into encouraging
> deployment or even R&D into any form of low carbon energy.  *Geoengineering
> R&D* ranked #12 on the Lomborg Top 20.
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:01:25 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:
>>
>> Posters note: This is of interest
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KGkbU_dE_XwJ.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: New EPA report

2012-12-12 Thread M V Bhaskar 

Diatom biomass is not one of the indicators listed by EPA, this is rather 
unfortunate.

There is ample evidence that Diatom Algae are declining and other algae 
increasing.
Diatoms grow better in winter and spring and other algae in summer and 
autumn, so warmer water is one of the reason for increase in 'algal' blooms 
of cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates.

Some of the indicators are -


   - Ragweed Pollen 
Season
   - Length of Growing 
Season
   - Leaf and Bloom 
Dates

All these relate to plants on land, growth of phytoplankton / algae in 
water is not listed as an indicator, though about 50% of photosynthesis on 
Earth takes place in water.

The time when bloom of Diatoms / Cyanobacteria start in Spring / Summer, 
the intensity of bloom, the number of days it lasts, etc. are all 
indicators of the climate and have an impact on the climate. In general 
Diatoms are good for the climate and Cyanobacteria and Dinoflagellates are 
bad.

A few report about Climate change and algae -

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-climate-algal-blooms-dead-zones.html

(Phys.org)—Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of intense 
spring rain storms in the Great Lakes region throughout this century and 
will likely add to the number of harmful algal blooms and "dead zones" in 
Lake Erie, unless additional conservation actions are taken, according to a 
University of Michigan aquatic ecologist.

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/CC_habs.aspx
How is Climate Change Affecting HABs Today?

Recent data shows that unusual or unprecedented algal blooms have been 
linked to climate anomalies (e.g., Belgrano et al. 1999, Skjodal and Dundas 
1991, Cloern et al. 2006, Moore et al. 2009). Further, rising sea surface 
temperatures have been associated with increases in dinoflagellates (many 
HAB species are dinoflagellates) in the North Atlantic, North Sea, and 
Baltic Sea and with an earlier appearance of dinoflagellates in the 
seasonal cycle (reviewed by Dale et al. 2006). Evidence also indicates that 
climate warming may benefit some species of harmful cyanobacteria (both 
freshwater and marine) by providing more optimal conditions for their 
growth (reviewed by Paerl and Huisman 2008 and 2009). Increasing 
temperature and CO2 either alone or in combination with nutrient 
availability may determine the growth and relative abundance of HAB species 
(Fu et al. 2008). Historical evidence from long term phytoplankton 
monitoring data and fossil records suggests that future climate warming 
could impact HABs through the alteration of their geographic range and 
shifts toward relatively more and earlier blooms (reviewed by Dale et al. 
2006).

regards

Bhaskar


On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:05:53 AM UTC+5:30, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>
> The EPA put out a new climate indicators report today. You can access it 
> at 
> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/index.html 
>
> Best, Mike MacCracken 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/SAWtzr8Xr5IJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.