Re: [geo] Jamais Cascio-- on the problematic idea of 350

2011-08-13 Thread Mike MacCracken
Hi John‹It would be good for those trying to understand the causes of ice age cycling and the potential sensitivity to read the papers of Belgian professor Andre Berger and his group, who have been looking at the roles of the various factors in contributing to climate change. Quite clearly, from

Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

2011-08-13 Thread nathan currier
Re the various discussions on sensitivity of late here: remember that Lovelock and Lee Kump have had a simple model for some 15 years in which sensitivity acts, as Lovelock likes to say, more like a variable than a constant.perhaps later on climate science will come to organize climate

Re: [geo] Jamais Cascio-- on the problematic idea of 350

2011-08-13 Thread rongretlarson
John - Thanks for bringing this dialog back to climate sensitivity - which obviously is a very key parameter for this list. You seem to have correctly stated the present view of Dr. Hansen as being 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling. But in your second citation to the work of Dr. Wasdell, Hansen's

Re: [geo] Jamais Cascio-- on the problematic idea of 350

2011-08-13 Thread Ken Caldeira
Climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only a well defined term (if at all) if you state what time scales or processes you are including and what you mean by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The higher sensitivity values seem relevant to time scales (i.e., 10 kyr) where ice sheets