Not considering everything under the sun is not a problem with our paper, it is what makes a scientifically defensible quantification possible.
We note in the paper that in quantifying future co2 emissions from existing co2-emitting devices, we are quantifying only a piece of infrastructural commitment. We started that paper thinking we would show that existing co2-emittig devices were enough to send us over 450 ppm and 2 c. We never intended to present s realistic scenario. I believe that existing infrastructure that does not directly emit co2 (eg automobile factories), not to mention political inertia, are enough to push us beyond these levels (in the absence of dramatic political change and engineering effort). Sometimes, when writing scientific papers, it is better to answer a limited question well rather than answer a broader question poorly. Scientific papers are like statements in a discussion. We generally try to say the first word on a topic, not the last word. Insofar as different sources of commitment can be quantified in a technically defensible way, I encourage others to do so. If we think of a good way to do so; hopefully we will beat you to it. When i have access to my laptop, I will send a copy of the paper. Ken Caldeira [email protected] +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Jul 26, 2011, at 11:25, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > thanks for that. I forwarded it. > > The Caldeira paper has the problems anticipated, ie that the > political/construction/sociological trajectory isn't included. There's no > way China can stop it's emissions growth dead. It's simply not going to > happen. > > I couldn't see the other graph, it didn't come out very well. I assume it's > dt vs CO2e ppm. > > I maintain that the evidence supports SRM as plan A > > A > > On 26 July 2011 04:54, <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew - This is to ask you to forward the following to the geo list. I am > sure it won't be successful from my computer These further provide detail on > the diagrams that a geo list member has asked for (and in the "Word" > attachment) > > List and Andrew > > As a subscriber to (behind a pay-wall) Science magazine, I was asked if I > could provide the graphs I was working with from the Davis-Caldeira paper I > commented on a few hours ago. I think this should not violate any copyright > prohibitions - and might even sell more for the journal Science (my > favorite). > > The necessary three data point-pairs are the right most in parts C and D > (I couldn't find a way to remove A and B.). > > These 3 point-pairs for the year 2060 can then be put in the (free) > material I referenced by Dr David Wasdell. - found at > http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate_Sensitivity.htm > . > The second graph is taken from the attachment article by Dr. Wasdell > that you provided on 20 July. This is the best copy I could find/copy. If > one rotates it CCW, one will find that the horizontal axis runs from 140 ppm > to 560 ppm with 280 ppm in the middle, plotted on a log base 2 scale. The > three point - pairs will be found to lie to the left of the 440 ppm dotted > line and below the "Charney" diagonal - a region that Dr. Wasdell says > mis-reads the historical evidence. > > I hope this is helpful. > > Ron > > -- 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.
