The empirical fate of smoke from fires on the ground is a more complex
matter than simply pasting it into a model's vertical divisions - when it
comes to vertical transport , the models in question rely more on the
taste of those programming them than natural history. This is an important
fai
"Geoengineering FIPC"
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:54:45 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
>
> Dear Albert,
>
> The way that nuclear attacks could change climate is because of the smoke
> from the fires they would st
all over
the place.
-gene
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Robock"
To: "Veli Albert Kallio"
Cc: "Geoengineering FIPC"
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:54:45 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
Dear Albert,
The
evidence of them dying in
heat, or lack of rain, would these measures be agreeable by rise in
cesium and iodine.
/Regards,/
*Albert *
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from
immediate threat to
> ecosystems and evidence of them dying in heat, or lack of rain, would these
> measures be agreeable by rise in cesium and iodine.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0400
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear
and iodine.
Regards,
Albert
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
Here’s my take on the exchange:
It seems to me the co
"Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence
climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles
also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud
properties, such as reflectivity.
A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shinde
Here¹s my take on the exchange:
It seems to me the core of the difference in the use and interpretation of a
metaphor to describe scientific results‹and arguing over this can
unfortunately obscure the significance of the scientific work.
Russell is doing what scientists often do, namely taking wo
Does anyone care anymore what Carl Sagan wrote 30 years ago? Half the
population is too young to even know who he was. I question whether
anyone who was under 30 in 1986 even remembers anything about the early
debates. Surely what is more important now is our current understanding of
the climate
Dear Alan;
You are trying to deny the elephant sized apple in the room-- your effort
to redefine 'nuclear winter ' downward amonts to raw semantic aggresion in
the light of how Carl Sagan made its quantitative meaning perfectly clear
by telling a national television audience it was "precisel
Dear Russell,
You are comparing apples and oranges, or apples and something that is
not even fruit. Are you doing this on purpose to fool readers or did
you not even read the papers and understand what was done?
Here are the differences:
1. TTAPS looked at three scenarios of global nuclear
Here are the time-temperature curves of the 1983 'nuclear winter ' model,
and those of Robock et al. 2007 , superimposed on the same scale:
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g370/RussellSeitz/?action=view¤t=TTAPSROBOCK.jpg
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
Alan's powers of revision continue to astonish. He writes : "It is amazing
how these results have held up in the intervening 27 years."
Really ? Has he forgotten the five order of magnitude difference in
darkness between the "Apocalyptic predictions" Sagan adduced in 1984 , and
the recent mode
Andrew and list (cc Andy Rivkin)
This is to urge replacement of your " controlled burns, bulldozers, etc. " in
your final sentence,
"Or would management of fire on the ground with controlled burns, bulldozers,
etc . be better? "
with " biopower, biofuels, biochar , etc : Controlled burns and
14 matches
Mail list logo
