does anyone know why all mail from geo or clim since 6th jan is shown as having an attachment which I cant look at. It doesnt appear as an attachmnt when I double click the email -only in the inbox list?
any ideas or is it a virus just from my server? john gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: John Nissen To: [email protected] ; Oliver Wingenter Cc: geoengineering ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: How different would tropospheric oxidation be over an ice-free Arctic? Hi all, Andrew raises some serious questions, with implications for our future on this planet if we get the answers wrong: 1. Has the effect of methane been grossly underestimated? 2. If so, could methane, from permafrost melt in the Arctic region, quickly lead to an addition of several degrees to global warming, with catastrophic consequences for climate change, sea level rise, and world food production? 3. Is geoengineering the methane a practical approach in these circumstances? 4. Should we prepare for SRM geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice? The Asilomar meeting, announced in today's Guardian [1], could be a suitable forum for the discussion of the above questions. How do we balance the risks of SRM geoengineering with the risks of not geoengineering? I can report from today's hearing on geoengineering at the House of Commons [2], chaired by MP Phil Willis, that the problem of Arctic warming was not mentioned once - and Sir David King (ex-chief government scientific adviser) even said we wouldn't have to worry about SRM geoengineering for another 40 years or so. The government is officially apathetic! Joan Ruddock (minister for DECC) said there is absolutely no urgency - there is no need even to discuss geoengineering in the public domain or internationally! They were sticking to their "proven" plan A of emissions reduction [3]. (As a result of the advice they are getting from scientists, people like Joan Ruddock seem more terrified by the prospect of geoengineering than by 3 or 4 degrees of global warming.) BTW, the new DECC adviser, David MacKay, cheerfully told me afterwards that the government is well aware of the problem of Arctic warming - so it is a wonder that nothing is being considered that could halt it. John [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/12/geo-engineering-summit [2] http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm [3] "Proven" was the word she used. How could she say that after Copenhagen? ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Lockley To: Oliver Wingenter Cc: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:21 AM Subject: [geo] Re: How different would tropospheric oxidation be over an ice-free Arctic? This is a hugely significant result, as the residence time of methane in the atmosphere will be dramatically affected by this change. The majority of naturally emitted methane will arise in the arctic. Other studies have already identified an increase in methane lifespan due to falling OH concentrations already, and this new data compounds the effect. Taken together, these effects suggest that the IPCC models dramatically underestimate the influence of methane. A rough analysis suggests that the radiative forcing from methane may be close to that of CO2 quite quickly. This could boot up into a 2x CO2 equiv world far sooner than expected. Unless we learn to geoengineer methane, or we're prepared to turn on the SRM rapidly, it looks like we could be in serious trouble very soon. A 2010/1/10 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040541.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 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.--
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.
