Dear Stephen,
I would not put much faith in this highly idealized model, unless it
could be shown to actually simulate past monsoon variations. It is a
nice intellectual exercise, but ignores many of the important processes
of the climate system.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director,
Good discussion. This is what geoengineering is all about.
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:50 AM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
Cc:
With respect Eugene, I have more qualifications in economics than I do in
climate science. I've also got ample experience dealing with legislative
changes through my work in NGOs.
A
2009/5/9 Eugene I. Gordon euggor...@comcast.net
So all of a sudden you are tax experts. Why don't you stick to
it is more economically sensible to tax where substitutes are readily
available.
If you're taxing to change behavior, yes. If you're taxing to raise
revenue without distorting markets, no. If we tax high-carbon
activities to fund mitigation in other areas, we're taxing for
revenue; if we
A few comments on that:1) Droplet size shouldn't affect chemistry. Both
surface area and the cross sectional area are proportional to the square of
the radius. Volume affects residence time, and is proportional to the cube
of the radius. Big droplets are shorter-lived, and hence more
I think that should be methanotrophic not methanogenic, if you are discussing
the removal of methane from the air.
= Stuart =
Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
skype: stuartestrand
Droplet size may affect chemistry because of surface tension. At
sufficiently small scales, a high-curvature surface isn't the same
chemically as a lower-curvature surface.
My impression is that the Brewer Dobson circulation is the net
circulation after east-west wind is canceled out, since the
