Re: [geo] Re: NOAA goes Plan B

Maybe, but we haven’t had the conceit that it was planned, or that we know enough to titrate one or more pollutants against others. Sent from my iPhone > On 24 Jan 2020, at 15:10, Hawkins, David wrote: > >  Ummm, climate intervention is what we have been doing for about 250 years. > >

[geo] Some Geoengineering history

https://undark.org/article/wilo-imagineers-of-war/ --Adrian Tuck *** 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534

Re: [geo] Unwieldy chants for Climate March

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT AN ALTERNATE FACT THE PLANET CARES NOT A RAP FOR POLITICS THINK OF YOUR KIDS & GRANDKIDS SCIENCE LAWS CANNOT BE REPEALED A CHANT: HEY, HEY, HO, HO, ALTERNATE FACTS HAVE TO GO IF YOU DENY IT, GEOPHYSICS WILL BITE YOUR ASS On 29 April 2017 at 09:51, Eric Durbrow

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

A good one seen in Denver: A picture of the Globe with arrows pointing to it and the legend "I'M WITH HER' On 21 April 2017 at 19:02, 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering < geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: > SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE > > when PROFITABILITY trumps RATIONALITY, EARTH =

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

are with you. > They too wish it were not true. > > > > On 4/21/17 9:59 PM, Dr. Adrian Tuck wrote: > > SCIENCE NOT PREJUDICE > > It's gotta be short > > On 21 April 2017 at 19:02, 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

SCIENCE NOT PREJUDICE It's gotta be short On 21 April 2017 at 19:02, 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering < geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: > SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE > > when PROFITABILITY trumps RATIONALITY, EARTH = the TITANIC > > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 8:28 PM, Eric

Re: [geo] Effective Climate Action Slogans?

THE LAWS OF SCIENCE CANNOT BE REPEALED - especially by politicians On 21 April 2017 at 12:24, Eric Durbrow wrote: > > > Here in the US we are having a March for Science tomorrow and March for > the Climate on the 29th. Does anyone have a pithy eye-catching > scientifically

Re: [geo] Meanwhile: CO2--- char without the bio?

I wouldn't get too excited, wavelengths are in the vacuum UV, 101.5 to 107.2 nm, they don't even reach the stratosphere. On 7 October 2014 00:07, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Just to clarify, the they in the sentence below apparently refers to the CO2 molecules, not the researchers ;-)

Re: [geo] Re: paper showing that turning down the sun experiments have similar climate results to prescribed stratospheric aerosol experiments

The attachment gives abstracts of three papers that show the complexity of the mechanisms that result in stratospheric water vapor content, and also the several chemical complexities of stratospheric aerosol chemistry. Models are some way off being able to represent them quantitatively. On 26

Re: [geo] Moral turbulence and geoengineering - Preston

It would be a good idea to get a grip on the complexities of physical turbulence in the atmosphere and ocean first. Adrian Tuck ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4 On 10 June 2014 10:25, Andrew Lockley

Re: [geo] Maybe it is hopeless

Indeed. My opinion is that it is a phenomenon arising from the widespread use of computers to produce forecasts via numerical process. Note the tendency to refer to such simulations as 'experiments' in modelling papers. On 7 June 2014 04:21, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:

Re: [geo] Canadian govt skips mitigation, aims for geoengineering

Here is a link that shows a very useful Canadian approach to attributing warming without the use of numerical models. It eliminates the possibility of the present warming being caused by natural fluctuation. Also attached is an op-ed piece based on the Climate Dynamics paper. There are competent,

Re: [geo] 'Like a giant elevator to the stratosphere:' Newly discovered atmospheric layer may impact earth's climate -- ScienceDaily

There's little new about the basic idea. Studies of Cb in the Bay of Bengal in the 1960s made it clear that the cores of deep tropical thunderstorms got up as high as 20 - 22 km, essentially unmixed from the marine boundary layer. In 1994, the NASA ER-2 flew from Hawaii to Fiji en route to NZ at

Re: [geo] Can we modify stratospheric water vapor by deliberate cloud seeding? Chen, JGR Atmospheres, Wiley

It would be a mistake to believe that model calculations can offer reliable simulations of the factors affecting the stratospheric water vapour content. The requisite scales are not there, and there is still debate about the detailed physical and chemical mechanisms at work. On 18 February 2014

Re: [geo] Amine cloud brightening

Not a new idea. Also, the reality is that cloud formation in the atmosphere will always involve a chemically complex mixture: Murphy, Thomson Mahoney, Science, 282, 1664-1669 (1998) detected 46 different elements with a single particle technique (Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry) in a

Re: [geo] COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE : International Journal of Modern Physics B: Vol

This theory of cosmic rays causing the ozone hole was comprehensively debunked 11 years ago, see below. 1. Title: Comment on Effects of cosmic rays on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbon dissociation and ozone depletion

Re: [geo] COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE : International Journal of Modern Physics B: Vol

based on experiments that give credible confirmation of the hypothesis? Science should not be compromised by opinion; although opinion may start the process of finding truth! Eugene Gordon -- *From: *Dr. Adrian Tuck dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk *To: *Andrew

[geo] The Weather and Climate, CUP

The book by Lovejoy Schertzer at the link below has just been published. It offers a new, physically based distinction between weather and climate, separating them by a regime called 'macroweather', which it is argued is what general circulation models simulate rather than true climate. There are

Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland’s melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all

It's more likely to be a power law than either linear or exponential, see:- http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/sg/knowledge/isbn/item6817926/The-Weather-and-Climate:-Emergent-Laws-and-Multifractal-Cascades/?site_locale=en_SG The abstract is available on the CUP link above, the book itself will be available

Re: [geo] 1. Prospects for an Emergency Drawdown of CO2

With regard to the sequestration of excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and halocline, I'd like to see an entropy analysis of such a procedure. The entropically entailed energy cost of removing the present burden at a dilution 400 ppmv is very likely to be so large that a thermodynamic