Eugene:
Doesn't your claim that climate science is in its infancy (which I
think is the word you intended, rather than 'infantile') rather
conflict with your claim that geoengineering is a viable option? I
don't see how uncertainty in climate prediction leads to failure to
act on greenhouse gas
All indications point to an ecological collapse in the not to distant
future. We now have the means and technology to do remarkable things.
If an abrupt global ecological collapse happens, we will not have that
advantage. It will be too late.
Many competent scientists and engineers have come up
NEGOTIATIONS: When an agenda is not just an agenda (04/11/2011)
Lisa Friedman, EE reporter
Climate change negotiators returned from a round of talks in Bangkok this
weekend with a list of items that nations will address this year leading up to
a December summit in Durban, South Africa.
But
The actual bill is here:
http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/S_757.pdf
My reading is that the performance requirements are to be specified (by the
DOE Secretary). I don’t think there are any specifications (yet) on what
flavors of CDR might qualify, so head-to-head competition between
Dr. Lockley and ccs
I generally agree with your comments and offer the following as something
directly related to arctic/antarctic/methane/time bomb issues - the topic of
this thread..
The following is only a personal follow-up to conversations on this list about
a week ago re Dr.
Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRersBarrasso and Enzi (was a sponsor in a previous
year) are both WY senators, so the obvious goal is to allow coal to continue to
be used, while CO2 is reduced from other sources and from ambient air. The 17%
figure is a worst case for coal, 10% is much closer to
