Mike, John, Greg,…There must be many runs of GCMs where the input is an
emissions trajectory that simply drops to zero (gradually or suddenly). Yet, my
perception is that the experts are unsure of what will ensue in the oceans over
the following few decades. (Assumptions are needed about the
Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think
that's the argument being made.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote:
forest has to be carbon-balanced, it isn't removing net carbon from the
atmosphere
Is there any way for this group to back up and deal with the George experiment,
setting aside for a day or so all visceral feelings about ETC? Does the George
experiment produce its own visceral feelings in any of you? It does in me.
Geoengineering has no future if it is not embedded in
Andrew: I very much appreciate your management of the geoengineering google
group. Let me remove all mystery regarding the Special Issue on CDR in Climatic
Change.
This special issue was edited by Massimo Tavoni (FEEM, Milan) and me. It has
ten papers. A paper version of the special issue
Ron: Please do not copy this long list in any further memo. These are people
whose emails are flooded already. I will reply to you privately.
Rob
From: rongretlar...@comcast.net [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:32 PM
To: Robert H. Socolow; geoengineering
Cc
Come on, Ken and others: The logic depends on the baseline.
If one's baseline is that the oil industry will be producing in the vicinity of
80 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil -- the current value -- for several
decades, then the comparison is between alternate ways of doing this. Using
Mike, Stephen, and others:
Evidently, regarding the new 400 ppm arctic readings, this group (including me)
needs help. Here's what I think I understand, followed by what I don't
understand.
Every year for several decades, in April and May, the concentration of CO2 at
Point Barrows, Alaska,
Instead of being defensive, consider that to many people the whole activity is
playing God. The distinction between researchers and decisionmakers is second
order.
From: Josh Horton [mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 02:52 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous
with his views of climate data.
Kerr's article, Greenhouse skeptic out in cold. was published in Science
246.4934 (1989): 1118+
On Mar 1, 4:01 am, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote:
Might it not be fair to expect
Might it not be fair to expect the public to reject Dick Lindzen's testimony,
in the absence of a direct refutation of his analysis? Is it really enough to
assert that he has been wrong before?
Lindzen starts from sea surface temperatures and satellite measurements of
radiation and infers that
Was it captured colorimetrically to see how green it was?
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rau, Greg
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 12:16 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] New green,
11 matches
Mail list logo
