==
-Message d'origine-
De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de John Nissen
Envoyé : dimanche 7 décembre 2008 22:39
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Oliver Wingenter
Cc : geoengineering
Objet : [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
Dear Alan,
Perhaps not everybo
I wrote John Connolly but meant Llyod Bensen with regard to the paraphrasing
about who I know and who I am not.
Sorry for the wrong attribution.
David.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering
Tom:
The Santer paper makes my point. Figure 6 clearly indicates that the
temperature trend per decade for the model ensemble mean-trends remains
quite uncertain and that the UAH trend (see graph B in the figure) better
represents the sond data than the UMd or RSS data.
Christy and Santer have b
Thank you Tom. That is what I call helpful.
David Schnare.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:59 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case the attachment was missed -- here it is again.
>
> Tom.
>
>
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please note that the recent paper by Douglass et al. that John
Oliver:
I know Fred Singer. Fred Singer is a friend of mine. I'm no Fred Singer
(to paraphrase John Connelly in a famous/infamous vice-presidential debate).
And, no I am not trying to convince you, or others on this list, that I (or
anyone) is dead certain about the cause of global temperature
In case the attachment was missed -- here it is again.
Tom.
> Dear all,
>
> Please note that the recent paper by Douglass et al. that John
> Christy co-authored has been shown to be seriously flawed by
> the following paper.
>
> Santer et al., 2008: Consistency of modelled a
Dear all,
Please note that the recent paper by Douglass et al. that John
Christy co-authored has been shown to be seriously flawed by
the following paper.
Santer et al., 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed
temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. IJoC: DOI:
10.1002, joc.1756
This a
. Sounds like trying to emasculate geoengineering.
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Robock
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 4:25 PM
To: Oliver Wingenter
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
riginal Message -
From: "Alan Robock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Oliver Wingenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "geoengineering"
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 9:25 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
Dear Oliver,
I agree with every
Dear Alan,
I agree. Your statement is more accurate.
Oliver
On Dec 7, 2:25 pm, Alan Robock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Oliver,
>
> I agree with everything in your message, except your claim that "We seek
> through geoengineering to reduce or reverse some of these side effects."
> I would
Dear Oliver,
I agree with everything in your message, except your claim that "We seek
through geoengineering to reduce or reverse some of these side effects."
I would say, rather, "We seek to discuss geoengineering, whether and how
it could be used to reduce or reverse some of these side effect
Dear David,
Your arguments remind me about how Fred Singer tried to convince us
that CFC where not harmful to stratospheric ozone. He ended up
wasting a lot of people’s time such as Sherry Rowland’s, Ralph
Cicerone, Mike Prather and others by refuting his articles.
However, to reiterate Ken's e
Oliver and Mike:
I'm a climate change agnostic, and am openly supportive of Geo-Nurtring,
including activities such as solar radiation management and rebalancing the
carbon cycle, which would surely include energy conservation.
The problem I have faced comes when someone like Prof. Jagadish Shukl
t 2:47 AM, John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John is 100% right in all of these points. I t cant be proved till
>>>>>> afterwards. A
I AGREE:
THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE GROUP IN WHICH TO DISCUSS THE REALITY OF HUMAN
INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE.
THIS IS A FINE DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER GROUP, BUT MERELY A DISTRACTION HERE.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Oliver Wingenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> The prudent an
Dear David,
The prudent and conservative to do is to be cautious and try and
maintain the status quo, which is our present climate or one not too
long ago. It does know one in this country (well a lawyer could argue
against this) any harm to conserve energy. It helps them personally,
the countr
t; From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >
>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >
>>>> Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> >;
now
>>
>> JOhn Gorman
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering"
>> ; &quo
Nobel Laureat economist -?- pointed out that we
> should
> > > not be looking at probabilities or cost effectiveness or cost benifit.
> > > Possibility plus dire consequences requires action -now
> >
> > > JOhn Gorman
> >
> > > - Original Mess
yer ; geoengineering ;
Wilfried Haeberli ; Paul Crutzen ; Rapley Chris
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:13 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
Oliver, the Huntsville data, which is not contaminated by a variety of
"corrections" Hansen injects into his temperature hi
PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering"
> > ; "Wilfried Haeberli"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > "Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PR
ried Haeberli"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:12 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
>
>
>
> That's the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering"
; "Wilfried Haeberli"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from He
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nissen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:29 PM
> To: Gwynne Dyer
> Cc: geoengineering; Wilfried Haeberli; Paul Crutzen; Rapley Chris
> Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
>
> Gwynne and everybody,
>
> One
That's the critical point and it needs to be made clearly and backed
up with evidence. Further, you need to PROVE that the arctic sea ice
is the tipping point.
A
2008/12/3 John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Gwynne and everybody,
>
> One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why
: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here
Gwynne and everybody,
One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why we need
geoengineering. I'll number this zero, so it begins the chain of argument:
0. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions overnight, the CO2 level in
the atmosp
Gwynne and everybody,
One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why we need
geoengineering. I'll number this zero, so it begins the chain of argument:
0. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions overnight, the CO2 level in the
atmosphere would remain at around 385 ppm, and the
27 matches
Mail list logo
