Hi Everyone,
As part of The University of Oxford's new seminar series on
geoengineering, we at the Oxford Geoengineering Programme invite you
and anyone you would like to share this with to participate virtually
in our three upcoming events featuring expert presenters and panel
discussions:
My two cents,
I think opening up the full spectrum of GHGs to consideration is highly
important. Stratospheric moisture is *the* principle GHG, yet little
conceptual work has been put forward on this site (or any other) concerning
the direct removal of this primary GHG. Just to be able to
reduce
Ken,
I did post this finding at:
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2012/01/crop-yields-in-geoengineered-climate.html
The abstract concludes with:
Nevertheless, possible yield losses on the local scale as well as
known and unknown side effects and risks associated with
geoengineering indicate
Dear Greg,
This is patently absurd. If it were true there would be no mileage
standards for cars, no efficiency standards for appliances, no Montreal
Protocol, no environmental regulation at all. I wouldn't have subsidized
solar panels on my roof in New Jersey and my electric company would
Alan,
Just to clarify for everyone, what you are criticizing is not Greg, nor
the Shindell paper, but the quote from Roger Pielke Jr.
Tom.
+
On 1/26/2012 11:06 AM, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear Greg,
This is patently absurd. If it were true there would be no mileage
Dear Tom,
Thanks for the clarification.
Alan
[On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me
is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).]
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology
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
