I have observed an enormous amount of valuable discussion on this
googlegroup. People have violently diverse views on how to move
forward. The discussions have influenced my opinions on some tough
philosophical aspects of geoengineering and the climate crisis, and
I'm sure it does the same for
Anybody who sends email to this group about sizes of testicles will be put
on the moderated list and any such message will be rejected. People who
repeatedly discuss issues in such terms will be designated as spam
senders.
This is not the level of conversation we want on this email group.
Hi Oliver,
I think we should all be extremely alarmed by what Albert has said!!
So a plan of action is urgently needed.
I've been talking about this with
Albert, on and off, for nearly two years now. Somehow we have
to stabilise the Greenland ice sheet. But if we do not save the Arctic
sea
Greg
GWP's by design ignore all climate impacts beyond 100 years.
This has real consequences as it makes methane look relatively more
important that it should be, and it also overweight's the beneficial
impacts of biomass sequestration in some calculations.
While some traditional
Strange...
http://www.jonsteinberg.com/2009/11/tackling-local-online-advertising-by-both-cutting-carbon-emissions-and-geoengineering/
D
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to
Seldom surprises come that big... especially when reading Sciene or Finnish
epic Kalevala:
The 150th anniversary edition of Finnish National Epic Kalevala with a
commentary dedicates a whole chapter to the events about sudden changes in the
Earth's turning axis in the ancient distant past
Thanks, David. I agree. Failure to appreciate long term effects and
ocean acidification impacts, together with questionable/opaque
discounting schemes has I believe resulted in CO2 mitigation being
greatly undervalued by the economists and this is significantly
undermining policy and
Hi,
I can only but agree Ken's arguments, we do not want our e-mails stolen and
circulated like the University of Anglia's climate unit and the read these kind
of stories in newspapers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
E-mail is
(This NYT item via the UN seems to contradict something recently circulated in
our group.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/science/earth/19oceans.html?_r=1
Seas Grow Less Effective at Absorbing Emissions
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: November 18, 2009
The Earth’s
All messages on this group are public already:
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?lnk=srg
From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:27 PM
To: kcalde...@gmail.com; glynlrobe...@gmail.com
Cc:
The other problem with 100-year GWPs is that they tend to hide all that can
be done with the short-lived species (black carbon, methane, ozone
precursors), so what we really need to do is to use both 20 and 500+ year
GWPs. Use of 100-year GWPs covers up both of the important tails.
Mike
On
Hi Jim,
I want to follow up on your email of 15th November.
So far, nobody has challenged the logic of my argument. So we all seem
to be in agreement! It's not what we'd like to believe, but the
conclusion is clear.
Why are most academics among us so reticent? Jim Hansen has noticed
this
John - Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I think I can speak for
quite a few others in the Biochar tribe when I offer below some
comments on what you have written. I do wholeheartedly agree with the
thrust that we are not doing enough today.
John Nissen wrote:
Hi Jim,
I want to follow
John
If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended audience
but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is important to
realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out there. It is no
good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since
14 matches
Mail list logo
