Dear Alan
The difference between my Commons statement and your position is too
subtle for me. Do you mean that you are not alarmed about the
possibility of the need for geoengineering becoming apparent?
I could not possibly ask everybody because I do not have a complete
list. However in
If I may, I think the difference is subtle but critical.
The implication of the statement "...we fear it will be [needed]" is that we
may be forced into a situation where we use geoengineering, but it's the
correct remaining response.
What Alan's arguing might be summed up as a fear that we wil
: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jamais Cascio
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 12:17 PM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
Cc: Alan Robock; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: your BBC quote
If I may, I think the difference is subtle but critical.
The implicatio
hi all,
although I comment infrequently on this list, I am very interested in
the discussions and really benefit from your expertise, so thank you for
that.
I'd like to offer three views on this discussion:
1) we are ALREADY geo-engineering the climate as well as many other
aspects of our E
Dear Stephen,
Since you persist, I have to request that in the future you please speak
for yourself, not as a spokesman for any ersatz geoengineering community.
Please note that I am not asking to be added to your list of exceptions,
but *I am asking you refrain from such generalizations.*
Jim Fl
That's right, Stephen, you should learn from Jim's example:
“Quite a few people fall into the category that I call ‘sincere but deluded
scientists’ — that is, they are pathologically enthusiastic about their
research, but not able to really rein in their enthusiasm,” Fleming said.
http://thetartan
Just to provoke a little debate...
Are there ANY scientists out there who think we should use geoengineering
INSTEAD of emissions reduction? IE advocating BAU+GE ?
I suggest there are not, but I'd be interested to see if I'd get pilloried
for speaking for the community.
A
On 24 March 2012 14:0
Dear Ken,
Actually, the GISS ModelE has a little too much sea ice. However, if you look
at Fig. 9 of our first geoengineering paper,
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf , you will see that
we indeed had an increase in sea ice in the very location that the Hadley model
Your explanation may be right and mine is probably wrong, but surface
albedo change does affect downward shortwave because there are reflections
off of cloud bottoms.
This effect is strongest in the arctic where there is both high cloudiness
and high surface albedo, making multiple reflections imp
Hi All
Andrew's question reminds me that there was once a debate on our Hose of
Commons when one member said of another.
'The Right Honourable gentleman has the manners of a pig.'
The was a general outcry of 'Withdraw, withdraw'.
The member said
'Very well I withdraw my statement.
The polar plots were done by [Add->Image Overlay] in Google Earth, then
stretching the image to cover the globe, and aligning the continents.
Fortunately you used lat/long as the projection, as everything lined up
very well, although of course it skews the area representation somewhat in
the 2D ver
Dear Mick,
Thanks so much.
Alan
[On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me is by
email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).]
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University
14 College Farm
12 matches
Mail list logo
