Hi, Hiroshi -
Thanks - I've just been waiting to hear back from Michael, and would
be happy to help. I already have a domain, as I mentioned
best, Nathan
On Aug 6, 10:22 am, hiroshi mizutani mizutani49...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Folks
I wonder if any advance is taking place concerning the
I strongly agree with everything in this-and in Mike McCrackens post and
attachment of 04.18 on 5th Aug
One thing that you academics in the field may not be aware of. At least
99% of well educated professional people have never heard the word
geoengineering. I cant think of a single case
Will do.
All interested in bio air capture need to be aware of this study:
http://ruralclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/document_cw_01-2.pdf
Your pithy analysis invited. Contact me at r...@llnl.gov if you have trouble
with the link - G
Hi Andrew –
I certainly agree with Neil Donahue that altering OH is “messing with
the center of everything” in the atmosphere. At the same time,
“messing with” might not be the best verb, in that, as he himself
says, we’ve already messed it up to some degree through all kinds of
pollutants. So,
I agree that little is known and disagree that widespread public acceptance
is needed. Public acceptance is not the issue. The public in general does
not have the intellect or attention span to understand the issue of global
warming except what they see in scare movies. Geoengineering is even more
Responding mostly to Nathan Currier's comments:
1. I do not think it is helpful to research programs to link together very
disparate sorts of activities and try to give the appearance that they
represent a closely integrated program. So, regardless perception, I do not
think a geoengineering
It is almost 20 years since I was a professor of ophthalmology in the
ophthalmology department at UMDNJ. Many different research topics came under
‘ophthalmology’. My research was on rabbit corneas. Others worked on
retinas. The point is that many disparate sorts of activities were linked
under
