In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of
the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time
possible given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase
in extreme weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree
that it is
I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the
major players
are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular.
This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments
The problem of usage of massive explosions would generate a shock waves that
thrust tongue of water rapidly under ice sheet or shelf forcing them to
disintegrate. Ice is softer than rocks and running water is the first to
respond generating a pressure wave tsunami, followed by implosion as the
Douglas
So we just send each other email attachments. It is quicker and draws
attention to each publication. If people think that enough other people
are less likely to cite their work the battle will be won.
The whole idea of money is to prevent excess consumption of a limited
resource.
Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access
(indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication fees
at all). Given that there is almost zero public funding in this field in
the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t generated with public
Hi All
The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit was 36.8%.
Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall . . . .
Stephen
On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,
Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public
