[geo] Re: 350 ppm?

CC: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Need citations showing IPCC too conservative

My strong impression is that Ken C. is spot on. As far as I've been told, in realms from Arctic methane to sea level to the monsoon, the rationale for action lies as much in what is NOT well understood as what is now locked down confidently. As described here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29

[geo] Re: Need citations showing IPCC too conservative

I generally like Stefan Rahmstorf's work, but his Science paper estimating sea level rise from an instantaneous linear correlation with surface temperature seems mighty non-mechanistic to me, and I question the predictive utility of such a correlation. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicati

[geo] Re: Need citations showing IPCC too conservative

Manu, I don't think you can make a very strong case that almost all scientific findings supercede IPCC AR4 in terms of how bad things are. And even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean that climate sensitivity is larger than previousl thought; it is primarly constrained by paleo cliamte ev

[geo] live blogging white house climate-energy forum

listen in and weigh in, or examine the points already made. so far no mention of direct air capture. look at what Chu said about the Arpa-E funding versus potential. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/white-house-forum-on-clean-energy/ -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environ

[geo] Enough on the Arctic Ice Alarmism

For those of you who think the Arctic ice will be gone soon, perhaps you'd like to see what the UK Met Office thinks. 2060! This is from Anthony Watt's website. UK Met Office backpedals on Arctic Ice – “…unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020.”

[geo] Re: 350 ppm?

You're being too logical Greg. Dan On Oct 27, 10:59 am, Greg Rau wrote: > We all saw the publicity surrounding 350.org's International Day of > Action last weekend insisting that we return the atmos CO2 to 350 > ppm.  My point is: aren't they dreaming if they think this can happen > any time so