Dave (cc Ken and list): Thanks to Dave.
1. Since I doubt very much that the computation shown included anything on CO2 effects, I hope Ken can weigh in on this, per the discussion last week re: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Warming-burning-091018.pdf 2. The answer might be 100,000 times larger - but that might exhaust the supply of glaciers. 3. Would Exxon today say that one day's worth of melting was calculated properly. That we are only talking of an insignificant addition of only about 75/365 (only about another 20%, assuming we don't worry about whether today's energy consumption is impacting any glacier tomorrow.) (Ken had a factor of 75 for 1 year). 4. I haven't had any luck logging on to to leave a comment at the Grist site, so hope someone will. One chap has shown a multiplicative factor of 65 - which looks like he has calculated for a year. Ron Hawkins, Dave wrote: > Ad in Life magazine 1962. > http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-18-oil-enough-energy-to-melt-glaciers/ > > > > -- > > 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=. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.707 / Virus Database: 270.14.73/2513 - Release Date: 11/19/09 > 00:51:00 > > -- 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=.
