Hi Alan--I'm confused. How are scientists being so stupid? Surely, not
by making water vapor the issue as that is treated as a feedback and not
the source of the problem? It is others who have latched on to the water
vapor feedback as somehow going on independent of the CO2 increase.
If you are saying that the IPCC is not adequately considering MCB, then
write some papers on it as what the IPCC does is assess the literature.
I don't like how the discussion of cooling interventions does not do a
comparative impact of assessment of the future with and without cooling
approaches being used to offset the ongoing warming from rising
concentrations of GHGs due to ongoing and growing emissions of CO2, etc.
In that the COP is in charge of asking for the input from IPCC that it
wants, they should be asking for that comparison.
What we in HPAC are saying is that it is the COP that needs to broaden
the set of policies and approaches they are considering to include the
full Triad. That seems to me to be where the problem is. In that you
want a fair scientific review of MCB and other approaches, calling
scientists stupid does not seem to me to advance the agenda that you favor.
Best, Mike
On 8/27/24 10:40 AM, Alan Gadian wrote:
Dear Ugo,
I am afraid CO2 reduction is not the major problem (analogous to
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic). Reducing CO2 is
crucially important.
This very brief note, attached , rejected by ArXiv, explains why.
Censorship is rife in this area and even basic laws of (high school|)
Physics are ignored (the flat earth mentality).
H20 is now the dominant problem. History will show how stupid
scientists can be.
Regards
Alan
Alan Gadian
0775 451 9009
[email protected]
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
On 27 Aug 2024, at 14:28, Ugo Bardi <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
you may be interested in this recent post of mine, based on a longer
paper that I updated on "ArXiv." My point is that solar radiation
management techniques, alone, are not a solution to the disturbance
to the ecosystem caused by the increasing concentration of carbon
dioxide. In my opinion, the way to go is to draw down CO2 both by
"natural" methods (e.g. reforestation) and -- in the emergency
situation in which we are -- using DAC -- direct air capture. Your
comments on this paper are welcome
https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com/p/carbon-dioxide-as-a-pollutant
UB
--
Ugo Bardi
https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/58db4cba-7445-44c7-a8eb-307955825be7%40gmail.com.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ec780cb1-f360-41a0-8c95-b3d21b6303e0%40comcast.net.
