If George Clooney plays me, I'm all for it! Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > I think "Pinatubo option" is a descriptive visual image that can > communicate in broad terms what we are talking about. > > Of course, there are many real and significant differences between a > volcano and engineered production of stratospheric aerosols, but I > think that it can be a good public communication tool to use "the > Pinatubo option" to refer to efforts to alter climate by emplacing > aerosols in the stratosphere. > > (And it will also give Alan many chances to re-remind us of all the > terrible things that happened after the Mt Pinatubo eruption.) > > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]; [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:49 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've obtained movie rights. Here's the current "The Pinatubo Option" >> casting line-up: >> >> >> Tom Hanks playing David Keith >> >> Paul Giamatti playing Ken Caldeira >> >> George Clooney playing Alan Robock >> >> and Darren McGavin (in his persona as Carl Kolchak) playing David Schnare. >> >> It will be easier to get funding for the movie than it will be to get >> research dollars. Hence, we can require all action sequences to be actual >> field tests. >> >> We still need a female lead. Please advise. >> >> ;-))) >> d. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ray Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ken >>> >>> I searched the archive and web and note this is >>> the first time anyone used the phrase: >>> >>> "Pinatubo option". >>> >>> Are you happy for this to become a fixed >>> phrase for deliberate injection of stratospheric >>> aerosols? It sounds good - like a movie title. >>> >>> And it might be a good benchmark vid: >>> >>> "This is what we have to start doing in Copenhagen, >>> to avoid having to resort to the Pinatubo option." >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> For future sulfur emissions, >>>> seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/5-20.htm >>>> >>>> For past sulfur emissions, see the attached paper. >>>> >>>> Current sulfur emissions are on the order of 50 Tg/yr and for this half >>>> century is likely to be in the range of 50 to 100 Tg/yr. >>>> >>>> The EGU abstract >>>> (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf) foresees >>>> emissions rates of 5 to 10 Tg/yr for the first half of the century, >>>> which is >>>> roughly the 10% range of current emissions, with this percentage scaling >>>> up >>>> if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and tropospheric >>>> sulfur emissions decline. >>>> >>>> So, this is not negligible, but it is unlikely to be a game changer >>>> either. >>>> >>>> It is my view that there would need to be some mighty compelling reasons >>>> to >>>> deploy a stratospheric aerosol system, if not only because people who >>>> experience bad weather in subseuqent years might be incented to sue (or >>>> even >>>> attack militarily) parties engaged in aerosol release. >>>> >>>> So, if we in an emergency situation acid rain, ozone loss, etc would be >>>> among the costs taken into account before making a decision, but these >>>> costs >>>> may not be decisive. >>>> >>>> I still think Mt Pinatubo is the poster child for stratospheric aerosols >>>> approaches: We know it can cool the Earth, we know it can do this >>>> quickly, >>>> and we know it does not immediately cause a global catastrophe. Were we >>>> faced with a real climate emergency, there could be a lot of pressure to >>>> exercise the Pinatubo option. I do not see that the abstract by Eliseev >>>> et >>>> al markedly changes this picture. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> ___________________________________________________ >>>> Ken Caldeira >>>> >>>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>> >>>> [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab >>>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> ** >>>>> *Some items from the EGU programme* >>>>> ** >>>>> *Cryosphere - how much longer?* >>>> >>>>> This should be an interesting session: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/142 >>>> >>>>> Also on cryosphere is the session chaired by Peter Wadhams: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/196 >>>> >>>>> And some potentially interesting presentations here: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/702 >>>>> and here: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/706 >>>> >>>>> *Geoengineering, session CL27* >>>> >>>>> There seems to have been a disappointing response for this session. >>>>> However the session does include a poster presentation from Russians >>>>> on >>>>> SRM using stratospheric sulphur aerosols: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf >>>>> I'd be interested in Ken Caldeira's comments on this. >>>> >>>>> *Carbon stock management* >>>> >>>>> In "carbon-constrained future", I see no mention of geoengineering: >>>>> http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/143 >>>>> For example, there is this presentation: >>>> >>>>> ---- >>>> >>>>> Can we control climate change risks and what does it cost? >>>> >>>>> B. Metz >>>> >>>>> Fellow, European Climate Foundation and former co-chair IPCC Working >>>>> Group >>>>> on Mitigation >>>> >>>>> For controlling climate change risks to manageable levels global >>>>> emissions >>>>> of greenhouse gases have to start >>>> >>>>> declining by 2015-2020 and need to be reduced to more than 50% below >>>>> 1990 >>>>> levels by 2050. >>>> >>>>> An overview will be given of the options that exist to achieve these >>>>> very >>>>> challenging objectives. The economic >>>> >>>>> reduction potential of these options will be given as well as their >>>>> costs. >>>> >>>>> Finally, the policies needed to realize the reduction potential will >>>>> be >>>>> discussed. >>>>> *----* >>>>> ** >>>>> There seems little sense of emergency, despite the looming cryosphere >>>>> dangers. Disappointing. >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stern_Chemosphere_2005.pdf >>>> 562KViewDownload >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David W. Schnare >>> Center for Environmental Stewardship >>> >>>>> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
