Hi All
Alan says that climate signals will be drowned out by chaotic climate
variations. Both the papers that I pointed to in my email of 24
September were about picking up small signals from large, random
variations. The second paper suggests that a 20 year run of the
pseudo-random
Hi Ken, David:
This is a really nice article! However, I take issue with a couple of
statements on biological methods:
1. You said biological systems are relatively inefficient in their
ability to capture CO2. It is estimated that it would take
approximately 2.5 acres of crop land to remove the
Late 2012? Just after the presidential election where Barack Obama wins
another 4 years of 10% unemployment and the endless winless war in
Cavemanastan? Have you been following the recent news, Josh? Republicans
will be taking over Congress soon. And these aren't the make deals behind
Robock et al (Science, 2010): *We argue that geoengineering cannot be
tested without full-scale implementation.*
Fleming (Slate, 2010): *Global climate engineering is untested and
untestable...*
In summarizing this conversation, it seems universally agreed that flat
statements like these are
Hi Stephen,
I think this is just a signal to noise question, looking at the part of the
response that is correlated with the input (which means its only noise on
the same time-scales that matters). There are some fancier things that can
be done in some limited cases where a lot is known about
Alvia,
Don't confuse my flagging this story with a belief that we're on the verge
of some sort of geoengineering Manhattan Project. We're not. I'd be
surprised if there were any comprehensive research program before we crossed
a climate tipping point (take your pick). But that doesn't mean
Prof. Zeng and list:
1. I concur with your objections. But I have another - which is that neither
the present article or your own recent discussions on this list use the word
Biochar - which I think has great promise, and certainly has received as much
public notice as any of the other
Yesterday I got to visit the NOAA lab in Boulder and, among other things,
get to see the simulations being done by their 15 km resolution icosahedral
grid simulation model with a finite volume numerical scheme. Other physics
is from the plug-in packages that are available and used in other GCMs.
If we're not going to launch the geoengineering Manhattan project until
AFTER the tipping point, is there any way to be sure we can drag ourselves
back up over the waterfall? Lenton's paper (
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.abstract) lists various
vulnerabilities, but I am unclear which,
I must remark that in future research we must keep our options
open--especially for my particular interest, the Arctic aerosol ideas. Any
large research program should include this, the very threatened region.
Here the Asilomar documents, which say all geoengineering research should be
outside
FYI, from Environmental Research Web, a summary of David Keith's new piece
in PNAS ( for the PNAS piece, see: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16428).
wil
Geoengineering: nanoparticles could beat sulphates Particles with designer
electrostatic and magnetic properties could hover over poles and
All:
Jim’s truism that global geo-engineering cannot be tested because it
is, well, global and is, thus, implementation, returns us back to, but
ignores, earlier posts here about phasing and scaling. Truism is not
argumentation. But Jim also asserts that any stepped research plan is
a slippery
12 matches
Mail list logo
