Hi John:
The thread is very interesting but from my viewpoint it is categorized
as ‘more of the same’; the scientists devoted to modeling are wrong,
the IPCC is sub-par, no one knows what they’re talking about, and the
consequence is we are heading off a cliff that only a privileged few
can see.
It would appear that the thrust is, ‘If only the scientists unite, and
sound an alarm about the cliff, that all will change.’ The reality is
that it won’t; period.
As far as I am concerned, using lateral thinking, or the logic of
Edward de Bono, we are in a non-linear mode and on that basis alone
the rate of change is beyond any forecast or anticipated. Scientists
will debate this into the ground, as they should, but society cannot
await that outcome. The bottom-line is that it is about assessing risk
and the flaw is in policy making.
There is no major business on the planet that would approach the
evaluation of risk in the manner that is used at the UNFCCC. The
dominating data for UNFCCC meetings are IPCC reports and there is a
specific reason as explained to me by the Nordic Council; it ensures
all the parties are preparing their participation on a common basis.
If the changes in the climate system were a shallow linear line this
would be satisfactory, as long as appropriate action was undertaken
between UNFCCC sessions. When they become non-linear it is entirely
possible that between IPCC reports we could have lost control or be on
the verge.
The constraint that seems to frustrate you the most is the IPCC
process, which can be rightfully critiqued but exactly what that will
ultimately achieve is at best questionable. Is the objective that all
contributors will suddenly hold up their hands and say, “Upps, we sure
made a mess of that!”
The reality of our circumstance is that the door to policy makers has
been slammed shut by vested interests and it needs to be opened. All
the Kings horses, and all the Kings men, if they happen to be
scientists are not going to open that door. The only possible avenue
is via those who control the policy makers and that is the investment
market. The investment market, well at the very highest end, cannot
read or fully comprehend a library of science or the arguments, and
counter-arguments, which emanate from that approach - they simply
don't have either the time or inclination so they have to have their
eyes opened. The opening case must be short, very short, and utterly
convincing
So I have attached for your review a shortened version of something I
recently prepared to further the approach to the investment market and
additionally the basic piece we originally generated for opening eyes.
In short, you, and everyone else on this planet are shareholders of
Earth Inc. Now, would you like to know what is about to happen to your
assets or fly blind?
Best,
David
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life
Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard?
From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, December 14, 2016 1:31 pm
To: "Alan Gadian" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Michael MacCracken" <[email protected]>
"P. Wadhams" <[email protected]>
"David Lewis" <[email protected]>
"geoengineering" <[email protected]>
"Kevin Anderson" <[email protected]>
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
"Greg Rau" <[email protected]>
"Peter Wadhams" <[email protected]>
"Kevin Lister" <[email protected]>
"Sev Clarke" <[email protected]>
"Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>
"David Tattershall" <[email protected]>
"Keith Nealy" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Alan,
>
> I am sorry not to be at the AGU to help in bringing some realism to
these
> folk. The danger from climate change is existential for human
> civilisation: it cannot be measured in millions of lives. On the other
> hand, these same folk are denying us the means to halt and potentially
> reverse climate change. They say that geoengineering is too dangerous!
>
>
> To continue on the theme of this thread, over the past few days I've
been
> looking into the sensitivity analysis approach, which considers the
> equilibrium temperature of the planet for a given amount of climate
> forcing, noting that the thermal radiation (IR) into space increases
as the
> planet warms. One can start from the basis of an heat flux diagram, such
> as produced by NASA [1]. The source data is from 2009 papers. It
would be
> interesting to know how all the fluxes have changed due to 1.0C global
> warming. And what is happening to the residual 0.6 flux: the surplus of
> incoming radiation over outgoing radiation? Is that the flux going into
> the ocean?
>
> I have always imagined that it took decades to reach equilibrium, so
I was
> surprised by the assertion from IPCC that reducing net emissions of
CO2 to
> zero would immediately halt temperature rise. I was even more surprised
> when I looked at the source of their assertion: a paper by Cao and
Caldeira
> from 2010 [2], where the actual graph shows a continuance of global
warming
> for a short distance on the diagram, which corresponded to 100 years or
> more on the timescale! This is far from immediate!
>
> So here was one serious inconsistency in IPCC output which I had
cheekily
> called a blunder. My other blunder accusation was over the Arctic and
> their projections of summer sea ice lasting into the next century.
>
> And then it struck me that, when dealing with the Arctic, you do not get
> this same equilibrating mechanism. As the Arctic warms and the sea ice
> retreats, the surface temperature of the open water remains at
roughly the
> same temperature of around freezing point. Thus the thermal
radiation from
> sea water will not increase as much as models might assume.
>
> Furthermore, the extra heat absorbed by the open water when the sea ice
> retreats is mostly absorbed into more saline water below the
surface, where
> it can get above freezing point. Peter Wadhams says that it has
warmed as
> much as 7C at the seabed in places. I am sure this mechanism has not
been
> captured by IPCC models. And the feedback of this extra heat to global
> warming invalidates their projections of global temperature.
>
> On the other hand, the extra IR from open water does act as negative
> feedback, especially in the autumn. John Shepherd has suggested an
> intervention in which the sea ice is broken up by ice breakers as it
forms
> at the end of summer, just for the IR cooling effect. And, dare I
say it,
> perhaps, just perhaps, Peter Wadhams and I have been unduly pessimistic
> about the speed of demise of the sea ice. I have already considered the
> extra IR in the scenario that the Arctic Ocean becomes seasonally
free of
> sea ice.
>
> In the business of climate restoration, it may be that we do not try
to put
> the planet back to the Holocene norm of the past six thousand years; but
> instead we aim for an equilibrium global surface mean temperature of say
> 1.5C above pre-industrial, together with a restoration of albedo in the
> Arctic.
>
> The target date for this might be 2030. Subsequently the surface
> temperature could be lowered, hopefully before the flux into the
deep ocean
> has changed the temperature there too much. I note that the North Sea is
> reported to have warmed by 1.7C over three decades which has changed the
> geographical range for many species and I might soon find that squid has
> become my favourite meal [3].
>
> Cheers, John
>
> [1]
>
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
>
> [2] See figure 1, lower diagram for temperature, dashed lines for zero
> emissions:
>
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Caldeira/publication/231099185_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_removal_Long-term_consequences_and_commitment/links/02e7e518d04694756a000000.pdf
>
> [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38265395
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Alan Gadian <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> There is a session here at AGU :" Impacts and Mitigation for 1.5C
warming
>> and other warming targets" It is a pity you were not here.
>>
>> Essentially, they are saying 1.5C is livable, only affecting 200
million
>> people, where as 2C displaces 500 million.
>>
>> I find the approach is alarming. They take climate models as realistic
>> representation of the atmosphere. It was illuminating.
>>
>> Regards
>> Alan
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, John Nissen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> I am all for a scientific evidence-based policy. You ask me to be
careful
>>> about who is responsible for what, and who should be acting. I
will give
>>> my
>>> personal view as a concerned scientist looking at the situation as
>>> dispassionately as possible.
>>>
>>> I would expect IPCC to describe the state of Earth System, the
direction
>>> and
>>> speed of travel away from Holocene conditions, the possible future
>>> scenarios
>>> (preferably based on how the planet has behaved in the geological
past),
>>> and
>>> the associated risks for human society.
>>>
>>> The IPCC should then propose what can be done to reduce these
risks to a
>>> minimum. These descriptions and proposed actions should be
quantitative
>>> as
>>> well as qualitative and specify time limitations. Scientists and
>>> engineers
>>> can then suggest technical solutions where appropriate.
>>>
>>> Governments, collaborating internationally, can facilitate appropriate
>>> actions, through regulations, direct funding and financial incentives.
>>> Entrepreneurs can seize opportunities to implement partial
solutions or
>>> approaches to "help the planet" in anticipation of support,
knowing that
>>> they have a clear steer from IPCC.
>>>
>>> These were my expectations - not what I am seeing from IPCC.
>>>
>>> The IPCC gives an impression the Earth System moving slowly and
gradually
>>> towards a warmer climate by the end of century, without
significant danger
>>> (e.g. from climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification or
methane
>>> outburst) unless the temperature reaches 2C above pre-industrial
Holocene
>>> condition. The word "danger" does not occur once in AR5 that I could
>>> find.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the evidence from observed trends paints a very
different
>>> picture. The Earth System is moving ever faster away from the Holocene
>>> norm, especially in the Arctic, where temperature rise, snow
decline, sea
>>> ice decline, methane emissions and Greenland Ice Sheet melt have
all been
>>> accelerating over the past thirty years. The sea ice is in a death
>>> spiral,
>>> according to the world's leading expert on sea ice, Professor
Wadhams. We
>>> could get locked into an Arctic which is seasonal free of sea ice
by 2020.
>>>
>>> Climate change is now all too apparent, with tens or even hundreds of
>>> millions people suffering as a result of drought brought about by, or
>>> aggravated by, climate change. Arctic amplification is implicated
in the
>>> remarkable growth in weather extreme events over the past thirty
years,
>>> including floods and droughts.
>>>
>>> Intervention has become essential if we are to minimise risk of
>>> catastrophes
>>> of one kind or another. What I don't see from IPCC is any sense of
>>> urgency. Michael Hayes wrote on this thread (Nov 30):
>>>
>>> "The greatest moral hazard is, in my humble opinion, being too
slow and
>>> rigid in developing our options and being too late in deployment to
>>> actually
>>> represent a meaningful effort."
>>>
>>>
>>> IPCC always talks about intervention becoming necessary in the
future. It
>>> seems that IPCC's motto is "later rather than sooner". The
precautionary
>>> principle is thrown out of the window.
>>>
>>>
>>> The result is that, when somebody seeks financial backing for a
proposal
>>> which tackles the major issues with a view to restoring the climate
>>> system,
>>> there is no support from the scientific advisers who would
normally advise
>>> potential backers on such matters.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus nothing gets done, while the situation becomes increasingly dire.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet climate restoration is on the cards, if we seize the
opportunity now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards, John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Michael MacCracken
<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John--I know you don't like it, but scientists and the IPCC are
>>> pro-science--they summarize what science says, those are their
>>> findings and communication.
>>>
>>> On what SHOULD be done, that gets into policy and into all sorts
>>> of questions in addition to and beyond science, so scientists
>>> have no special right to be the decider and tend therefore to
>>> refrain making claims based on their occupation while perhaps
>>> supporting a position as a citizen.
>>>
>>> The question of what to do is really one before the
>>> decision-makers of the COP, with input coming from all sorts of
>>> groups. Scientists involved with IPCC work to keep the
>>> statements relating to science to be scientifically accurate--it
>>> is up to the public (hopefully the knowledgeable public) to be
>>> influencing the decision-makers, etc.
>>>
>>> I really do wish you would be more careful in making clear where
>>> the responsibility really lies and who should be acting. Trying
>>> to make scientists into advocates is just running against a
>>> long-held tradition that makes good sense for our society as a
>>> whole. There will be pushback against these movements that want
>>> to simply ignore science or abuse it, and it is key in that
>>> regard that science not just be viewed as one advocacy group
>>> (for other than the scientific tradition and support of its
>>> findings).
>>>
>>> Best, Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/16 9:54 AM, John Nissen wrote:
>>> Hi Mike and Alan,
>>> I think we are on the same side when it comes to what matters.
>>> Are we not all fighting for a better future for humanity on this
>>> planet we all share? And doesn't this involve doing something
>>> to prevent the situation getting a lot worse in the Arctic, even
>>> when there is disagreement between models and observations over
>>> just how bad the situation has become and how quickly the
>>> situation is deteriorating? Surely the international scientific
>>> community should pull together and agree on action to improve
>>> the situation which has a chance of success? Surely some kind
>>> of interim intervention to restore Arctic albedo is required,
>>> even if only on a precautionary principle if you think the most
>>> optimistic models are correct. And shouldn't we prepare for
>>> intervention as quickly as possible to give ourselves the
>>> greatest chance of successful deployment, while continuing
>>> research and developing better models to optimise that
>>> deployment? And isn't preparation for deployment justified even
>>> if it doesn't prove necessary?
>>>
>>> Preparation need not take years. There was a discussion on the
>>> Ebola outbreak on the radio this morning. They said how the
>>> procedure for drug testing which would normally take years had
>>> been cut down to six weeks - but even that was too long to save
>>> many lives.
>>>
>>> There has been a huge antagonism to geoengineering built up over
>>> the years, so that most scientists are now against it. But our
>>> job is to recommend what is best for humanity. We need to use
>>> some geoengineering techniques for a limited period to get the
>>> planet back on course - reversing climate change and restoring
>>> the climate to Holocene-like conditions. We must not fail to
>>> give good advice just because of public sentiment against
>>> geoengineering.
>>>
>>> Cheers, John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael MacCracken
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Alan--I don't disagree that there are problems
>>> with models, just there have been with various types
>>> of observations that have to get resolved (e.g., the
>>> Microwave Sounding Unit time series, ocean
>>> observations as types of instruments changed, etc.).
>>> And the full set of observations can also be
>>> incomplete, not accounting for all that may matter.
>>> What science needs to do is work out why--not
>>> believing either in some absolute sense.
>>>
>>> On the Arctic situation, I was just noting the
>>> obvious, namely that if you drive even perfect
>>> models while not accounting for some particular
>>> forcing, that could well be a cause of/contributor
>>> to the disagreement between results of model
>>> simulations for ice volume and extent and
>>> observations--it is not always the physics that is
>>> the problem.
>>>
>>> I'd generalize your statement that history (here
>>> meaning of scientific discovery) has not looked
>>> favourable on those who ignore the observations,
>>> however erratic or unreliable, to suggest that those
>>> who carefully seek to understand the differences
>>> between available observations and available models
>>> (theory), accepting neither without question, have
>>> been those who have most advanced the science (and
>>> in so doing they must look at everything skeptically
>>> and then also look for what we may not even be
>>> considering).
>>>
>>> Best, Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/27/16 1:54 PM, Alan Gadian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay .. in India.
>>>
>>> I am afraid I am someone on the "other
>>> side" in that I use NWP and climate
>>> models for my living. Thus I can speak
>>> as someone who has used them a lot!
>>>
>>> There are good things about climate
>>> models as well as bad things. The fear I
>>> have is that the whole of the IPCC is
>>> based on climate models, and that is the
>>> issue. There are huge differences
>>> between the poles, and these are largely
>>> ignored. There are other processes
>>> which are not replicated in
>>> climate models. Why a double ITCZ? Why
>>> little Indian monsoon. One can explain
>>> these features ...
>>>
>>> I note the papers, but I am afraid,
>>> whether it is 70km mountains on Venus
>>> (as proposed by NASA) history has not
>>> looked favourably on those who ignore
>>> the observations, however erratic /
>>> unreliable.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Michael MacCracken
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Alan--When
>>> observationalists are clear
>>> the observations of ice
>>> thinning and retreat are
>>> right, and the modelers are
>>> insisting that the physics
>>> is the model is properly
>>> constructed
>>> and correct, then, if there
>>> are inconsistencies between
>>> the two, what needs to be
>>> looked at
>>> very carefully is the
>>> forcing, or more
>>> specifically, the changes in
>>> the forcing over time.
>>> Specifically, there have
>>> been changes over time in
>>> the sulfate and black carbon
>>> forcing that
>>> affect the solar radiation
>>> budget and also cloud
>>> albedo, and there have been
>>> changes in the
>>> tropospheric ozone
>>> concentration (as well of
>>> the greenhouse gases, which
>>> need to be treated
>>> specifically and not using
>>> CO2e). I'd suggest that all
>>> it would take are some
>>> relatively
>>> modest problems in some of
>>> these forcings as the region
>>> has gone through the issue
>>> of Arctic
>>> springtime haze and the its
>>> "clean up" as SO2 emissions
>>> in Europe and North America
>>> grew and
>>> then cleaned up much of the
>>> SO2 emissions, as the black
>>> carbon loadings changed as
>>> growth of
>>> diesel emissions of black
>>> carbon changed and were
>>> somewhat reduced, and then
>>> as China has
>>> grown. Calculations in
>>> Navarro et al, 2016 make
>>> clear that changes in
>>> forcing can influence
>>> the Arctic. I'd just suggest
>>> that a hypothesis that I
>>> think likely needs some
>>> exploration is
>>> that it is the time history
>>> of the forcings that could
>>> explain the difference
>>> between the
>>> observations and the models,
>>> and that it might be more
>>> productive to look at this
>>> alternative
>>> hypothesis as a way of
>>> explaining their
>>> differences.
>>>
>>> I'd also note that I suggest
>>> this as only one alternative
>>> hypothesis--there may well
>>> be
>>> others. In any case, I'd
>>> suggest finding some
>>> possible explanation(s) for
>>> the differences and
>>> to get working on
>>> reconciling and
>>> understanding the reasons
>>> for the differences--which
>>> is
>>> what science generally aims
>>> at doing rather than simply
>>> blaming the other side.
>>>
>>> Best, Mike MacCracken
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/23/16 1:50 PM, Alan
>>> Gadian wrote:
>>> Reto and Peter,
>>>
>>> ECMWF is the best forecast
>>> model in the world. If you
>>> had attended the change of
>>> directorship last Spring,
>>> you would have heard them
>>> say that the ice model
>>> predictions
>>> ( and they have the HIGHEST
>>> resolution forecasting
>>> model) are terrible, do not
>>> predict
>>> changes and have little
>>> connection with reality. My
>>> climate model has taken 250
>>> days
>>> on 12,000 cray cores and I
>>> only achieve 20km
>>> resolution. ( I estimate I
>>> used about 2
>>> million dollars of
>>> electricity in the end, as
>>> some of the model is at
>>> 2-3km resolution.
>>> It has possibly been one of
>>> the biggest projects on
>>> ARCHER.
>>>
>>> ECMWF can run globally at
>>> 2-4km resolution. How is it
>>> also that Martin Miller ,
>>> who
>>> masterminded much of the
>>> ECMWF model said of AR5 ,
>>> that the clouds were so
>>> badly
>>> predicted that the radiative
>>> balance is not correct, and
>>> the climate models could not
>>> be trusted for clouds and
>>> radiation? He was one of
>>> the worlds best experts,but
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> Also then, How is it that
>>> then the climate models can
>>> do so much better than the
>>> best
>>> weather prediction models in
>>> the world? When the data
>>> evidence of the HUGE changes
>>> in
>>> ice volume and extent, are
>>> so apparent, so much so that
>>> by the time AR5 went to
>>> press ,
>>> six months after writing,
>>> the ar5 ice extent
>>> predictions were outside the
>>> predicted
>>> range for the worst
>>> scenario, how can the ar5
>>> community still try to sell
>>> the story?
>>> Maybe Trump took his lead
>>> from the climate modellors?
>>>
>>> I have had endless arguments
>>> with Piers Forster , another
>>> lead author on ar5 about
>>> this. scientists who know
>>> about modelling the weather
>>> have been ignored. You do
>>> not
>>> get papers published which
>>> day that models are wrong,
>>> only when you say how great
>>> they
>>> are.
>>>
>>> In essence ,after AR3, it
>>> has become a gravy train for
>>> academic careers based
>>> largely
>>> on CXXP models. In a short
>>> time these models will be
>>> shown to be catestrophically
>>> wrong, and all that is done
>>> is to pillory those who try
>>> to point out the true
>>> science.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Alan.
>>>
>>>
>>> T --- Alan Gadian, NCAS,
>>> UK. Email:
>>> [email protected] &
>>> [email protected]
>>> Tel: +44 / 0 775 451 9009
>>> T ---
>>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 15:32, P.
>>> Wadhams <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Dr Knutti, I
>>> would like to intervene in
>>> this seemingly interminable
>>> thread to draw
>>> attention to errors which
>>> you have made when you
>>> mention my
>>> work.
>>>
>>> 1. " But the natural
>>> variability is very large
>>> (e.g. Kay 2011,
>>> Swart 2015,
>>> Screen 2013, 2016). There is
>>> no reason why short
>>> term trends
>>> could simply be
>>> extrapolated, and the
>>> predictions
>>> by Peter Wadhams
>>> of sea ice disappearing by
>>> today have not
>>> happened so far"
>>>
>>> a) I completely agree
>>> that natural variability is
>>> very large and stress
>>> this in my book "A
>>> Farewell to Ice" which I
>>> suspect you have not read.
>>> In
>>> the book I stress that
>>> it is the TREND which is
>>> rapidly downwards towards
>>> zero, not that every
>>> successive year features a
>>> monotonic decrease in
>>> summer ice volume.
>>> And, despite the newspaper
>>> reports which seems to
>>> constitute your
>>> reading matter on my work, I
>>> do NOT forecast that the ice
>>> volume will go to zero
>>> in a specific year (like
>>> this year), only that it
>>> will go to zero in a
>>> very small window of years
>>> (of which this year forms
>>> one) as opposed to the
>>> decades which are still
>>> forecast by the worst of the
>>> current models. You
>>> might also care to glance at
>>> the current NSIDC charts
>>> for ice volume (Arctic
>>> and Antarctic) which show an
>>> extraordinary turndown
>>> since September
>>> suggesting that the
>>> co-operative collapse which
>>> I have long
>>> projected through my
>>> thickness measurements is
>>> now happening. b) Why can't
>>> short term trends be
>>> extrapolated? Firstly, they
>>> are not short term - they
>>> date back to the 1980s
>>> when observations began. And
>>> secondly, please name
>>> the magical effect
>>> which will cause the trend
>>> to become invalid and the
>>> ice
>>> volume to pick up
>>> again.
>>>
>>> 2. > Maybe the models
>>> are missing something, but
>>> it's just as plausible
>>> (and
>>> in most
>>> scientist's view more
>>> likely) that the models are
>>> largely
>>> consistent with observations
>>> within natural
>>> variability.
>>>
>>> Your idea of "most
>>> scientists" is an odd one.
>>> When the observations show a
>>> rapid declining trend
>>> leading to zero very soon,
>>> how can models (which
>>> predict decades of
>>> continued summer sea ice) be
>>> consistent with these
>>> observations? They are
>>> simply not consistent, and
>>> it is clear that by "most
>>> scientists" you mean
>>> "many modellers", some of
>>> whom have never seen sea
>>> ice.
>>>
>>> 3. I'm not
>>> downplaying the
>>> strong changes in the
>>> Arctic, but the science
>>> suggests a
>>> fairly linear (and
>>> reversible) relationship
>>> between
>>> Arctic sea ice
>>> and temperature with large
>>> variability
>>> superimposed. In
>>> my view they do not support
>>> a "death spiral".
>>>
>>> Well, it's obvious
>>> that there is a linear
>>> relationship between air
>>> temperature history
>>> and sea ice thickness. The
>>> "degree days of cold"
>>> analysis dates back to
>>> the 1950s and was amplified
>>> by Maykut and
>>> Untersteiner's
>>> analysis in 1971. But if air
>>> temperature is increasing
>>> rapidly, as it is,
>>> then thickness will decline
>>> just as rapidly, leading to
>>> a period in summer
>>> with zero thickness, in
>>> other words, a "death
>>> spiral"
>>> QED.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase Captain
>>> Scott, I don't think I need
>>> say more,
>>> Best wishes
>>> Peter Wadhams
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message
>>> because you are subscribed
>>> to the Google Groups
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this
>>> group and stop receiving
>>> emails from it, send an
>>> email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> To post to this group, send
>>> email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> Visit this group at
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>>> For more options, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Alan Gadian, Senior Scientist, NCAS, Leeds University, LS2 9JT , UK
>> Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
>> Tel: (+44)/(0) 113 343 7246 Mobile: (+44)/(0) 775 451 9009
>>
>
