If I were a termite reading this thread, I would be most upset! I mean, you
mean to tell me that my beautiful macrotermitine - so excellently designed
that it accurately controls its internal CO2 levels, temperature, and
oxygen levels, and thus keeps all of us brilliant termites so comfortable
I'm all for Kevin Anderson's ideas on efficiency, but please note: Anderson
is also strongly anti-nuclear...Happy holidays, Nathan
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:51:53 AM UTC-5, Chris Vivian wrote:
>
> NB You can download a PDFof the article at:
>
Hi, All -
I think Andrew has it right here - maybe it could be a nice 'teachable
moment', perhaps?
I grew up in RI, and, although I don't really live there, still have a car
registered there so did, possibly, uh-hmm,
vote (ha!) for one of the jokers who sponsored that bill!
But I think this
there be a feasible way of doing this?
Cheers,
Nathan
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:25 PM, nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Michael Adrian -
Thanks so much for all of this, which I personally think is very important
material. I found the Sloan-Pollard paper fascinating, in spite of, and
maybe
Hi, Michael Adrian -
Thanks so much for all of this, which I personally think is very important
material. I found the Sloan-Pollard paper fascinating, in spite of, and
maybe partly also because of, the fact that it isn't a new paper, yet seems
to inject a fresh and tantalizingly relevant
Hi, I also disagreed with the premise of this op ed, but for quite
different reasons: I have not been able to understand how someone like
David Keith has been able to
get fixated on such a notion as this bit about Who will control the
thermostat? of geoengineering, which he has discussed for
Hi, Michael and GeoE -
Thanks. Michael, you write about wanting to “promote offshore cultivation
above all other forms of CDR and CO2 utilization/sequestration.” I’ve seen
the Rodale stuff before, and wondered about their rosy numbers. Note that
in the quote here Rodale are describing using 2x
that this is not a
subject where only paid professionals are involved. In fact thank God for
some intelligently amateurs!
John Gorman
nathan currier natcu...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Dear John - Had you a technique that worked securely, quite a few people
might sleep better at night. But Ken
johnnissen2...@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:39 PM
To: nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com
Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com, Google
Group geoengineering@googlegroups.com, kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu, Andrew Lockley
, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com
wrote:
In answering what John Nissen writes, I’d like to try to draw together
various recent conversations at this group – first I’ll respond a bit here,
since John was sending this my way, but then will try to continue on
another thread. Basically, I
://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/sea-ice-melt-by-2016/
On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:18:03 AM UTC-4, Nathan Currier wrote:
Oh! Could you point me towards those discussions, papers, etc, describing
the mechanism of this?
The volcanic H2O paper I just attached discusses lower stratospheric
warming's role
of the kind of thing
I was wondering about.Nathan
On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:24:47 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
There's an intrinsic connection as SRM warms the tropopause
A
On 11 Aug 2014 04:24, Nathan Currier natcu...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Hi, Andrew - I fully agree, and really
, Nathan Currier natcu...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
One very widespread geoengineering 'meme' concerns stratospheric SRM
and Pinatubo. One reads about it continuously - like Pinatubo, we will
“cool the planet” through stratospheric aerosols. How real is this?
Pinatubo clearly cooled
/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathan Currier natcu...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
This is more question than comment, but it seem to go without saying that
the similarity (turning down
Hi, Stephen –
My speaking of the “the wrong direction” referred to what you had written,
which assumed that with added warming DMSP-producing phytoplankton become
starved of nutrients, hence leading to less DMS. While certainly true in
much warmer regions (and I mentioned in what I first
Hi -
Very sorry about that, I hope you didn't open it.
Cheers,
Nathan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Hi, Ken -
I'm curious if there's been much modeling, consideration or observation of
the following: plenty is known about the radiative effects of the sulfur
itself,
but in recent years, Solomon's research on the possibly much larger impact
of stratospheric water vapor on global climate than
wrote:
An interesting discussion, no doubt - but please can all posters start new
threads for new topics.
Thanks
A
On Jul 18, 2013 4:05 PM, Nathan Currier natcu...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hi, Ken -
I'm curious if there's been much modeling, consideration or observation
To the extent this comment is responding to anything that I wrote, let me
just clarify: while I have already voiced my opposition elsewhere to a fair
number of the items on the lists you reprint, none of that negates what I
just wrote, which is that, for the members of AMEG, all of their proposals
I strongly agree with what Andrew says here.
This paper begins by essentially saying, politely, that IPCC AR4 model
predictions weren't worth too much
since they left out arctic carbon feedbacks. Since the paper ends by
saying the soil carbon feedbacks are highly
uncertain because of lability (ie
Andrew mentions in a parallel thread that
there's very little briefing on the list for proactive involvement.
I'm just wondering aloud now about whether some pro-active involvement at
the moment couldn't
turn the Russ George incident into a teachable moment for geoE, rather
than the PR
Hi-
Here's a link to a new piece at Huffington Post -
*Arctic Crisis: Far From Sight, the Top of the World's Problems*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/arctic-crisis_b_1859710.html
I thought you might be interested in it.
Cheers,
Nathan
--
You received this message because
Hi, John -
Yes, I agree, but I think that it might be easier through ice itself.
The Lena seems by far the most important for what you mention, as it flows
to about the fastest warming
part of the arctic, carries lots of water to the primary methane hotspots
of ESAS, its waters arrive there
In terms of nature's little geoengineers, and hoped-for negative feedbacks
in the arctic, there might also be some neighborly natural SRM
going on under the arctic ice alongside the natural CDR described in this
posting. At Los Alamos there's been some interesting modeling of sea-ice
edge
Hi, all -
Going back to Stephen's suggestion, re arctic methane escape, elevated
arctic CO2, and then the subsequent comments on OH, etc.: first, if there
were a chronic release of CH4 to the arctic atmosphere, I don't think you
would expect to see any elevated CO2 there at all, since the
I had written this yesterday, but accidentally sent it just to David Keith
and not the group.
Thanks much. First, in terms of your 3. below, that was from Dave, and not
me, so he could take that up further, perhaps.
In terms of 2., I'm not sure what Dave meant there either, but I
Hi, David -
I fully agree with that, and actually used that same MIT paper in something
I wrote up for the group AMEG recently. In fact, if you look at table 3.3
in this -
http://www.findthatfile.com/search-19564999-hPDF/download-documents-4876_powerplant_airemission_en.pdf.htm
you'll also
Hi, Bhaskar -
You wrote -
Based on a combined reading of all papers on the subject I understand
the following -
Coccolithophores increase Albedo and DMS production and
Diatoms sequester more carbon by falling to ocean bed.
I used to believe something like that, too.
But actually the primary
Hi, Ken -
What about cc-ing things to AMEG (the arctic methane google group)
that are also
meant for the general geoengineering group readership? I know that I
accidentally once
did the opposite (i.e., I once sent to the geo google group something
only intended for AMEG), but
have been careful
, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:
Yes, but what's lost in the water column? Only very sudden releases
in shallow seas make it to the atmos, and much may re-dissolve as it
remains in the marine boundary layer.
A
On 16 April 2012 22:17, Nathan Currier natcurr
Hi, Andrew -
In Ken's 'white paper' on arctic geoengineering, the quantity
of SO2 used was hardly larger than one single large US coal plant
(about 33% bigger than the largest US plants, I think).
I entirely agree that what you are bringing up should be looked into
thoroughly,
as too often
Sorry, I meant to post the below to this thread, in response to Ken's
query, but hit the wrong button.
On the other hand, the post of Andrea and Christopher makes me wonder
how it will get interpreted
the very approach to ethics here suggests a conventional framework
in which what I raise
(unintentionally
creating the sulfate loading), and only later became focused on simply
reducing SO2 emissions. So, one has to be careful of the linkages you make.
I certainly agree the calculations need to be made.
Mike
On 3/20/12 10:30 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none
the sulfate loading), and only later became
focused on simply reducing SO2 emissions. So, one has to be careful of
the
linkages you make.
I certainly agree the calculations need to be made.
Mike
On 3/20/12 10:30 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none of those with the skills
emissions. So, one has to
be
careful of the linkages you make.
I certainly agree the calculations need to be made.
Mike
On 3/20/12 10:30 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since none of those with the skills to do these calculations much
more
professionally seem
Hi, Josh –
I hope the irony is not entirely lost on you, in your quote from
Shakhova, that the people she hopes will keep their minds open to the
idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand
about our world, are hardly the folks at AMEG - but rather those like
yourself,
urge people to consider this process, not
jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may
significantly change what we understand about our world.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi, Josh –
I hope the irony is not entirely
Since none of those with the skills to do these calculations much more
professionally seem to be jumping in quickly to take over the reigns,
I'll try not to embarrass myself in giving initial crude answers to my
own question from the other day, which follow:
I find that in a recent paper from MIT
them less effective
4) absorption by aerosols of near IR shortwave could partially cancel the
cooling by scattering.
Bala
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Nathan Currier
natcurr...@gmail.commailto:natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know of any published papers exploring the use
May I make the reminder that their group is not called the Arctic Sea
Ice Emergency Group,
but the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
The primary issue in all this is: what is happening with arctic
methane
emissions right now. That's what matters here. Criticizing PIOMAS or
whatever is what Al Gore
Does anyone know of any published papers exploring the use of
tropospheric aerosol use?
cheers,
Nathan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
somewhere that it was assumed the IPCC AR5 would
reflect this,
but I don't know the current state of that.perhaps Mike would know
that.
but nothing would surprise me anymore
All best,
Nathan
On Feb 24, 7:57 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Robert,
You wrote
Dear Michael -
As far as I know no one here has proposed anything
about soot, which you rightly connote would exacerbate warming,
except the strong desire to reduce its emissions.
all best,
Nathan
On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Michael Fleming michaelf...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do cloud seeding operations
Dear Robert,
You wrote originally looking for help disputing a “skeptic,” and I
hope it hasn’t been
lost upon you that there sometimes seems to be almost as much
disagreement within
the climate community itself as between such “skeptics” and climate
scientists. Indeed,
the outcome of such
Hi - yes, John, I was in touch with Shakhova the day before she left
-
I had to get permission for the graphic of hers I used in my last
HuffPost piece,
so she read through it and said everything was accurate as far as her
work's portrayal in it is concerned..So, I wish you all very good
luck
Hi, Charlie - Someone sent me an article mentioning the amount of
$15 million for the project. That's just bizarre! The
GMI/GMF already has spent some 10x that, and their partner countries
list is much, much larger
than this. There's just something weird about this initiative: all I
can picture
Ken -
I don't consider that far afield at all: I think it's 100% central to
what
this site should be about, since geoengineering and emissions
policies
need to be properly constructed together and be complimentary.
It looks great I can't wait to read it in more detail.
Cheers, Nathan
On Feb 17,
can expect some
dramatic and potentially novel effects from AGW. My guess is that
ecosystems will be severely damaged by the speed of change, as they can't
react quick enough (especially forests).
A
On Jan 30, 2012 3:17 AM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
In terms of Ken's first
In terms of Ken's first comment, perhaps this is a bit aside the
point, but
I'm not sure it's just rate or rate plus amount of change:
if you look at the (admittedly awfully rough) Phanerozoic climate
reconstruction,
and look at where the 5 big extinctions took place, it's noteworthy
that there
Not only is Alan correct on Pielke, but what about Tierney - is
methane not
a fossil fuel? And for Pielke, what about conflicts between policies
restricting carbon dioxide and
those designed to best control radiative forcing? What about recent
papers showing the effects of rapid loss
of current
I mentioned the idea last year of starting up a wiki for
geoengineering. I've just written up a draft of the basic introduction
for a site, and wonder if anyone has any comments. I can imagine that
some here might not appreciate the kind of 're-branding' I'm aiming
for, but I'd be curious to
Hi, Here's the 2nd episode - cheers, Nathan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/methane-in-the-twilight-z_1_b_1207619.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering
The beginning of a series looking into the recent press coverage as
well as other
aspects of the arctic methane issue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/methane-in-the-twilight-z_b_1198239.html
Cheers, Nathan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Linking human fate to the resurrection of the wooly mammoth
will sure make amazing headlines! I can almost see the final scenes
of the movie already - how moving it would be! Can't you hear the
grunts of the
animal, the camera closing in on its eyes, the tears of the
researchers watching
methane
production, and carbon sequestration is a side
benefit. Biodiversity would also be aided.
A
On Jan 4, 2012 5:03 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Linking human fate to the resurrection of the wooly mammoth
will sure make amazing headlines! I can almost see the final scenes
Hi, Andrew - I was mentioning this issue a few days ago, based on a
meeting
with Elaine Matthews at GISS who was involved in the original
research.
as I said, it's also a reason why plain old ground-based sulfur
emissions might
be a good idea, in this relatively uninhabited region.
if it turns out there truly is an emergency
underway. In this case, at this moment, with the information
available, I think discretion is the better part of valour.
Josh
On Dec 19, 5:57 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Josh –
I think one is seeing what you’d expect
likely to
intensify competition with sulfate-reducing microorganisms for whom prior
SO4
2
limitation had been lifted by the simulated acid rain S deposition.
Citation: Gauci, V., N. B. Dise, G. Howell, and M. E. Jenkins (2008),
Suppression
A
On 21 December 2011 18:05, Nathan Currier natcurr
by Andy Revkin)? Until we have answers to these questions, I
hesitate to jump to any conclusions. Maybe you have information I
have overlooked?
Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.comhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/
On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
the most vulnerable GHSZ. If anyone
is interested in exploring engineering options of this issue, please keep
me in the loop.
Michael
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.comwrote:
Just checking in Shakhova, she mentions that what she calls
flaw polynyas
Hi -
I agree. I had a piece back in early November at Huffington Post,
Methane and the Fierce Urgency of Now, very much
seeing the same urgency as John Nissen, but not
geared towards geoengineering
cheers, Nathan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/methane-emissions-urgency
It's interesting how the methane hotspots in the map
accompanying the article seem mostly around river mouths
could this be utilized in conceptualizing remedies?
I remember a Shakova paper talking about the role of riverine flow
in terms of breaking up winter icebut there must be other
simplified, if the
hotspots are
in fact around the areas of river mouths, then at the least it
suggests
that the concentration will need to be not just on keeping summer
ice but probably on finding techniques of helping these areas of
winter ice too.
On Dec 15, 5:48 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr
I'm not sure I see why, after some 800 papers,
the authors think their 6 page review should lead everyone to
retire CLAW. Half a decade ago a researcher in the
field explained to me that it was then already well established that
the
CCN production was, to quote these authors, much more complex
Hi, John - Could it be related to DMS production there?
Although in the complex of things one could imagine it working the
other way (i.e. in ice cores DMS, I believe, is ~5x higher during
glacials)
some models predict arctic DMS will actually increase a good deal as
it warms.
being
Perhaps this goes off the thread's subject a little, but since the
dichotomy between 'test' 'deployment' is here portrayed as one
between a pulsed aerosol signal as the test and a sustained one as the
deployment, has there been much playing around within models of the
effects of differently
Peter Wadhams mentioned evidence for some decline of
AMOC at the workshop, but we don't know how serious it is or could
become, except that it seems to be related to the retreat of the Arctic
sea ice.
At Woods Hole some research seemed to point to the sudden starting up
again in 2007 of the
+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Nathan Currier
108 Ellwood Street, #43
New York, NY10040
401-954-3402
www.nathankindcurrier.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
methane geoengineering and also TiO2 white roof treatments
fromRenaud_de_RICHTER ecologi...@gmail.com
to hiroshi mizutani mizutani49...@gmail.com,
Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com,
Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com,
Neil Donahue n...@andrew.cmu.edu
dateMon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8
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
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,
Hi Ken,
It seems your inspiration in this is largely a defensive one. In
essence you’re suggesting that organized objection to geoengineering
will be too great an impediment, and that if there’s this pejorative
connotation that’s grown around “geoengineering,” then let’s get the
needed research
Hi, Andrew -
A comment, a question for Ken.
First, I'll try to study your NOx questions some more soon will post
again later
(someone who I met briefly at UVA, Jim Galloway, could probably help
us with this, tooall his
work is on N cycle, some of it climate-related.)
In any case,
regular
contributions of related content. I will spend the needed cash to organize
the basic startup effort, however what happens after that is up to this
group.
Michael
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.comwrote:
--
You received this message because you
Hi Andrew, Sam, Oliver -
I heartily agree, think that this is potentially one of the
sleepers of the geoengineering world -
it is also unique in that it is neither CDR nor SRM would probably
be quite safe thus easily enacted.
I would doubt that you're going after it the right way, though,
to this cause.
Wishing you (and us) the greatest success!
David Mitchell
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:17
Subject: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
To: geoengineering geoengineering
also not sure of the proposed TiO2 chemistry. If the coating acts on
NOx and or the OH radical, it may even be counter productive!
I'd be prepared to be proved wrong on all of the above :-)
A
On 28 Jul 2011 18:50, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Andrew, Sam, Oliver -
I
Thanks, Andrew, his email's there, just after the phone/fax.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
To: nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com
ways of getting this done!
Cheers, Nathan
Nathan Currier
108 Ellwood Street, #43
New York, NY 10040
401-954-3402
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
In discussing what defines functionally extinct ice, it's also clear that
the term ice-free arctic is not well defined: if ice extent is generally
defined as the area with 15% continuous ice cover, then the whole arctic as
ice free seems to be starting to get defined in some circles as that
John, Andrew -
P.S. Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting workshop,
London 3-4 September, are most welcome.
Try to get Euan Nisbet, who lives there in London and deals with
methane emissions, to take part. But if you specifically want to try
to exploit methanotrophy, as in
What with Mike's mentioning the recent earthquake off of Japan, are
folks on this list aware that the first real-world
methane hydrate mining project, funded by the Japanese government, was
set to begin about a month before the
quake/tsunami, in the Nankai trough, not all that far away, and run by
Thanks, Mike, for the excellent responses, with which I agree 100%. Do you
have handy a link to the new UNEP assessment you mention? I'd much like to
see it.
One of the things that often perplexes me is why CCS from burning coal at a
plant is generally
considered geoengineering, but trapping the
these
sociocultural dimensions, which will influence decisions on testing
and deployment.
Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/
On Apr 25, 12:17 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
The recent bright water discussions are interesting
I agree with Ken’s comments to the authors, but wonder whether this
concentration on geoengineering’s ‘termination problem’ couldn’t be
used to rethink possible limits on large-scale aerosol SRM to make it
more palatable and acceptable? Someone once posted, either in a ‘moral
hazard’ thread or
The recent bright water discussions are interesting to me partly as a
psychological phenomenon. Just as Seitz begins his paper noting the
similarity between hydrosols in water and aerosols in air, with
hydrosols having their attendant analogues to the “Twomey effect” –
similarly complex issues of
Hi, Ken –
I guess I’d add to the many posts on this thread – don’t forget to
think both defensively and offensively, and since the amount of money
is small, ways in which some of it might be able to act like seed
money should be of interest. In the worst case, what could happen in a
few years?
/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.comwrote:
I agree with Ken’s comments to the authors, but wonder whether this
concentration on geoengineering’s ‘termination problem’ couldn’t be
used to rethink possible limits on large-scale aerosol SRM
such a project?
All the best,
Nathan Currier
280 Ortman Road
Greenwood, VA 22943
540-456-8544
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group
Re: Stephen Schneider's finally embracing a geoengineering idea,
shortly before he died, to help save arctic ice.
His views on geoengineering swung widely, first against, then perhaps in favor
and finally supporting an effort as yet unfulfilled to stop sea ice melting in
the Arctic by use of
in any way replace sulfur-based or cloud
albedo-enhancing approaches, but that it might be useful in any case
to help deal with this most urgent question of methane hydrates, and
seems like as good a place to start as any.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Currier
280 Ortman Rd.
Greenwood, VA 22943 US
91 matches
Mail list logo
