One interesting aspect of this discussion is effect on global climate of
catastrophic forest fires
Vizy et al, and other authors, have looked at biome scale wildfires,
notably in the Amazon region.
These have the possibility to affect global climate severely, and
potentially (I suggest) induce a
It is hard to adduce natural analogs to phenomena that do not exist , for
example, the instantaneous appearance of a global homogeneous soot cloud
with an optical depth of twenty, which was the parametric basis of the
apocalyptic TTAPS model that climatologists Starley Thompson and Steve
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/176
Geoengineering Research: Walking on thin ice
Calls for geoengineering research in the open environment must be resisted
until we have adequate governance in place.We are walking on thin ice –
physically and metaphorically. This year the extent of
Dear Andy,
Thanks for this. It is amazing how these results have held up in the
intervening 27 years. In fact our new climate model simulations show
that nuclear winter was correct, and that it would last longer than we
thought then. And now we know that new nuclear states can produce
Andrew and list (cc Andy Rivkin)
This is to urge replacement of your controlled burns, bulldozers, etc. in
your final sentence,
Or would management of fire on the ground with controlled burns, bulldozers,
etc . be better?
with biopower, biofuels, biochar , etc : Controlled burns and
Alan's powers of revision continue to astonish. He writes : It is amazing
how these results have held up in the intervening 27 years.
Really ? Has he forgotten the five order of magnitude difference in
darkness between the Apocalyptic predictions Sagan adduced in 1984 , and
the recent
Poster's note - maybe these personal profiles will be of interest to the
list
A
http://m.theengineer.co.uk/1014047.article?mobilesite=enabled
Leading wave energy pioneer Prof Stephen Salter
26 September 2012 | By Stuart NathanProf Stephen Salter
Prof Stephen Salter, technical adviser at
Here are the time-temperature curves of the 1983 'nuclear winter ' model,
and those of Robock et al. 2007 , superimposed on the same scale:
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g370/RussellSeitz/?action=viewcurrent=TTAPSROBOCK.jpg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Dear Russell,
You are comparing apples and oranges, or apples and something that is
not even fruit. Are you doing this on purpose to fool readers or did
you not even read the papers and understand what was done?
Here are the differences:
1. TTAPS looked at three scenarios of global
Andrew Lockley:
I told you *not *to post this in elaboration of the link to *Nature*already
provided - I expected you at most to use it to replace the link if
paywalled
Please take this a put it where it belongs, inside the original thread
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:41:54 PM
Dear Alan;
You are trying to deny the elephant sized apple in the room-- your effort
to redefine 'nuclear winter ' downward amonts to raw semantic aggresion in
the light of how Carl Sagan made its quantitative meaning perfectly clear
by telling a national television audience it was
11 matches
Mail list logo
