I speak only for myself. Geoengineering represents THE contingency if global
warming continues for whatever reason. Any decent organization engaged in a
project with uncertainty develops contingency plans. Why not countries? I
recall my post doc work at MIT in 1957 on Project Sherwood, the first
It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the
magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to
saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying
my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker,
From:
The fact that Lindzen took the wrong view on smoking says nothing about his
views on global warming. PERIOD! Lindzen has a view. He does not call it a
theory. Hansen has a view; he should not call it a theory. The situation is
the science is premature. The hypothesis of AGW is not robust even if
/2006/04/lindzen-point-b...
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon
euggor...@comcast.netwrote:
The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his
view (I happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well
established and it is early times. However
The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his view (I
happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well established and
it is early times. However, the earth is warming and has been for 10,000
years without benefit of CO2 increase, and based on past history will
Thank you; models may help to explain the issues but not the science. Only
when you do an experiment for which you have predicted the results and the
predictions hold true and you do it enough times so that you have no doubt
achieved truth do you have a credible science. Until then it is
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
Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
I agree
Prof. Robock's input is not about geoengineering as far as I can tell.
I disagree strongly with Prof. Robock's thesis. There was in fact an initial
demonstration of the power of the bomb in the New Mexico desert. The
Japanese were not impressed. The second bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and
after
Here is a trivial point. I disagree that wind energy changes climate. Rather
it influences weather locally. If one turns off the wind turbines presumably
the weather is quickly restored to its normal state. Moreover the objective
was to produce energy; and not to influence weather or climate. I
To All:
It is perhaps worthwhile to be reminded that the history of the Earth's
average temperature is known from geological and proxy studies going back
450 million years. A good reference is the www.scotese.com website. In all
cases an ice age was followed by an increase to about 25C which
I support John Nissen’s view with some slight modification of the wording, but
not the theme. I like his use of the expression, ‘appears to be likely
happening’ and want to amplify that. I don’t like Ken’s use of ‘I am
confident’. As scientists we can express conviction but not certainty until
The world is full of economic experts. Little good it is doing; the economies
of most countries are disasters. It is easy to take a swing at economists. My
choice for bums of the year are the politicians.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On
Albert:
No! Geoengineering Yesterday. In any case it is interesting that sunspots are
now getting attention. Most climate scientists have ignored sunspots despite
excellent perfect correlation back to the year 1500. So much for the science!
-gene
From:
Deploy has an ominous and fateful ring. What about some careful, well thought
through, limited experiments in order to decide about the value and risk of
deployment? I think that is entirely possible with stratospheric aerosols. I
think this group is entirely capable if defining and proposing
At last some sanity.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Revkin
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:05 PM
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much
sooner)
16 matches
Mail list logo
