or the object it is made of needs to have a temperature sensitive
conductivity‹one that goes down as the temperature goes up so it is
transporting heat out in the dead of winter and not down in the warmth of
summer.
Mike MacCracken
On 9/5/08 7:22 AM, Alvia Gaskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added
as if the climate is at equilibrium and would not warm
anymore if all forcings stayed constant. Sorry, but the ocean has a lot of
heat capacity.
And if I misstated things it is because I had already spent too much time
just skimming the article. Apologies.
Mike MacCracken
On 9/21/08 12:47 PM
, but that leaves the
uncertainties large and the regression analysis an important
validating tool for GCM projections.
We are now well off-topic for this group, so I'll leave it at that.
David.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Mike MacCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Douglass et al
I thought this review from the Washington Post of a young adults category
book might be of interest to the group, given the book's focus on living in
a controlled environment. [I have not read the book--yet.]
Best, Mike MacCracken
An Inconvenient Truth
Everyone is safe and happy
Dear John--
Although not nearly a perfect analogy, the situation we are in is a bit like
society being asked to jump from the top floor of a skyscraper that is
burning amidst a city that is also burning‹and society is being asked to
jump relying on a parachute that has gone through only very
(1809T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
TEL.: 202-566-2275
FAX: 202-566-2373
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Mike MacCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David‹Well, I read the article‹what a lot of nonsense. Aside from little
The most recent paper on white roofs and potential influence is downloadable
at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-999-20
08-031
Mike MacCracken
On 12/12/08 9:51 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@stanford.edu wrote:
Reflective roofs have not been discounted
, deploy in areas where it would come back in the time to row the
algae to sufficient size for harvesting.
One key problem, of course, would be that the downwelling areas can be large
and variable--ah well.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/12/08 11:46 AM, Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov wrote:
Agree that biofouling
.)
Cheers from Chiswick
John
- Original Message -
From: Mike MacCracken mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net
To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; Alvia Gaskill mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com
Cc: Geoengineering mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject
that we have
no choice, and it is far better to make the transition than not. Check out
John Harte¹s book (http://www.cooltheearth.us/index.php ) to get a sense of
what US could be doing.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/19/08 10:09 PM, xbenf...@aol.com xbenf...@aol.com wrote:
All:
Tom Wigley Ken C
to me that the natural warming effect of water vapor on the planet is
going to be hard to displace.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/20/08 12:08 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve et al.,
I have performed some climate model simulations of this idea (holding off on
assessing its engineering
and challenges
of implementing the various approaches.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/23/08 4:31 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories
will put their views forward.
I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way
want to decrease the cloud emissivity so
the surface can more rapidly radiate to space (the clouds tend to retard the
cooling process that allows ice to form, as Jennifer notes).
Mike MacCracken
On 12/29/08 11:26 AM, Andy Revkin anr...@nytimes.com wrote:
hi all,
I consulted with a few sea
. And you would need to link to
ideas about reforestation/afforestation.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/30/08 9:35 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
I am planning to start a new wiki on the various techniques such as
fake plastic trees, biochar etc, designed to remove GHGs from
they are
aloft, the response does not reach equilibrium and eventually goes away. A
small, persistent change can, however, have a longer term effect as it
activates some of the longer term feedback processes.
And I am sure there are further nuances.
Mike MacCracken
On 12/31/08 2:29 PM, Ken
Hi David‹Well, I do hope you read the comments under the article you
referred us to, and then about the issue from the perspectives of some other
reporters who did a bit of investigation. For example, see the following:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ and make
of the changes, if not
all. Thus, I'd tend to agree that ultimately, there is going to have to be
some quite extensive consideration of what might be done.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 1/13/09 9:17 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
Bearing in mind that we're still unsure
There have been suggestions about putting dust or solar absorbing material
in orbit in the past (I think they were covered in the 1992 NAS report, for
example). The idea actually goes back at least to Hoyle (1957) and was
expanded on by Kahle and Deirmendjian (1973) of Rand Corporation. The basic
--
Ignoring the effects of the sulfate aerosol cooling offset as its lifetime
in the atmosphere is at most a couple of weeks once emissions stop, the CO2e
concentration is over 450 ppmv already (the level the EU, after considering
scientific findings on dangerous change, calls the limit that
for a considerable time after you cut emissions well back,
etc. And then there is the potential for thresholds--like starting loss of
ice sheets--that are not likely to be easily reversed.
Arguing for caution is as much a policy (and moral) choice as arguing for
action.
Mike MacCracken
On 1/18/09 9:57 AM
I remain confused about this proposal‹if one is going to go to all of the
effort to harvest and sink the wood, why not use the wood for fuel and not
mine and burn the coal?
Mike
On 2/5/09 4:14 AM, Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The forestry in the Arctic is only
is not leading to
changes in the fluxes of radiation due to saturation of the bands.
Mike MacCracken
On 4/2/09 7:38 AM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov
euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
All the discussion here is making sense. Clearly the initial goal is to
first reduce solar radiation energy
-- Forwarded Message
From: Holdren, John P. john_p._hold...@ostp.eop.gov
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:23:55 -0400
Subject: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House
Colleagues --
The stance of the White House on geoengineering was garbled in the AP story
about an interview with me that
to the surface).
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 4/27/09 4:34 AM, Raymond Law r2007...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everybody,
I was referred to joining this group with my layman's version of solution to
the subject crisis. The solutions that I am outlining below are a ' mixing
and matching
I did not mean glass mirrors, just some reflecting or blocking substance.
Best, Mike
On 4/28/09 3:55 PM, dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why mirrors, rather than whatever's cheap, harmless, and opaque?
On Apr 28, 2:57 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mr. Law
Dear Eugene--In that the climate was cooling over the last 5-6000 years or
so until the warming during the late 19th and through the 20th century, what
is it that underpins your belief that the climate would be warming now in
the absence of human activities? And, to convince anyone, you had
in the right
orientation until getting frozen into the ice, preferably has no moving
parts, etc.--figure that out and one should get a real prize.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 5/3/09 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
This idea links well into proposals for pumping seawater onto
from the bright surface would also be reflected back down,
so indeed, some work is needed on optimizing the particle (bright on top,
not reflecting on the bottom.
Mike MacCracken
On 5/11/09 11:33 AM, xbenf...@aol.com xbenf...@aol.com wrote:
All:
Bonnelle Denis is right that a detailed
A couple of points:
1. On the angle issue, this is of course taken into consideration in
calculating how much solar radiation reaches the Arctic at any given
time‹and rays just passing tangentially through will not count much at all.
That the actual incident light in high latitudes in summer,
area.
Mike MacCracken
On 6/5/09 9:07 AM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote:
Some answers, perhaps to the question of what happens to all that energy in
a hurricane, provided by the aptly named Chris Landsea. Chris was also on
TV last night on the National Geographic program
Message -
From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net
To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; mlei...@climateresponsefund.org;
Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; Geoengineering
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Just in Time
-
From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net
To: dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com; Geoengineering
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:41 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
Some further comments are included (labeled MCM):
On 6/6/09 3:17 AM, dsw_s
.
And on the rapidity of the response, note that for volcanic forcings, one
gets a pretty quick response, at least of the mixed layer. If one is up to
an equilibrium, then it would take a lot longer to get the heat out of the
deeper ocean layers.
Mike MacCracken
On 6/12/09 12:02 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde
Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating:
Based on the earlier email on the energy involved in and dissipated by
hurricanes, the heat release of a hurricane (on average‹big ones are higher
by a good bit) is on order of 5.2 * 10**19 Joules per day. Convert that to
sometimes forget to keep offering the
explanation, but it has proven very sound.
Mike MacCracken
On 6/12/09 10:43 AM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov
euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
Amazingly you ignore the physics. When a black body such as the greenhouse
layer gets black it achieves a maximum
of overall geoengineering: the smaller
storms might mix less heat down into the ocean, so that less heat is
transported to the poles.
On Jun 12, 8:42 am, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating:
Based on the earlier email
of this idea yields the highly provisional result
that a cooling of one or two degrees (perhaps more) could possibly be
achieved: which could be significant vis-a-vis hurricane development..
Other cooling ideas could prove to be of importance.
Cheers, John.
Quoting Mike MacCracken mmacc
and
hopefully quantitatively controlled cooling to optimise or rectify the
conditions obtaining in small and important regions. This idea requires much
more examination.
All Best, John.
*
Quoting Mike MacCracken
Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address
these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique
_of_robinson_etal/
And exactly where is Mount Meru. Wikipedia offer this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology) --interesting, but not
very practical help.
Best, Mike
On 8/8/09 10:19 AM, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:
First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and
than
just to cover smooth water with a thin layer. I might add that, as I
understand it, Kerry Emanuel actually did some experiments on doing this
sort of thing (with an organic fluid) 5-10 years ago, and did not find
success‹it is very likely a lot harder than it might seem.
Mike MacCracken
On 8
cost were free.
Mike MacCracken
On 8/15/09 9:07 AM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote:
The GeoBusters are hard at work this morning, what with cereal being used to
stop hurricanes and my entry into the transformational energy debate, the
White TARP (so-named to gather immediate
My apologies, but I do not see how anything like this could possibly work.
The issue is not the transfer of heat energy to the atmosphere by direct
heating‹the warmth of the ocean is what enables evaporation to occur and it
is then the condensation of the water vapor that gives the energy for the
warm in
the polar regions without the tropics being too much warmer.
Mike MacCracken
On 8/16/09 2:38 AM, global_frozing global_froz...@yahoo.com wrote:
Will it be right to say that hurricane is the process of moving heat
up and out, so in fact the hurricane mitigation will work for global
The situation is hopefully not quite so hopeless. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801
143.html
On Energy, We're Finally Walking the Walk
By Lester R. Brown
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Mike
***
On 9/20/09 6:58 AM, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net
ice is on the mend and global
temperatures (more importantly, global heat content) is on a level path and
probably will remain so for another 7 to 15 years.
d.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net
wrote:
No disrespect intended, but I would suggest
Interesting.
So, 2 C above preindustrial is the official goal by the leaders. We have
warmed by 0.8 C, so that means we have about 1.2 C to go. Convert that by
multiplying by 1.8, and that gives a bit over 2 F to go from present
warming. I guess the larger number makes people think we have a bit
at 7:56 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
2 C above preindustrial is the official goal by the leaders. We have warmed
by 0.8 C, so that means we have about 1.2 C to go. Convert that by
multiplying by 1.8, and that gives a bit over 2 F to go from present warming.
Mike
What about doing this across Jakobshaven and other fjords that allow ice
streams to flow rapidly?
Mike
On 10/1/09 9:25 AM, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
Please find enclosed a brief satellite animation on the Robeson Channel from
this summer which suggest
and convince delegates before you go to the meeting when the delegates might
have a chance to listen.
Mike MacCracken
On 10/3/09 7:33 PM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov
euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
I had sent this to John yesterday.
John, I don¹t disagree but you have ignored some important
Ken makes some very good points. I would just add that understanding about
geoengineering is spreading, and needs to continue to be nurtured with more
research building even greater understanding of what might and might not be
done, and what it will mean. That geoengineering is getting into
Just a note that I believe some of the bills in Congress tend in these
directions. Congressman Van Hollen has a proposal much like the Hansen one
and I understand that a senator has one that gets income from cap and trade
system and then distributes most of money as suggested by Hansen, but holes
to lava to provide
heated water (as I recall).
I would also note that there is a rather large geothermal heat industry here
in the US.
In any case, at least start your thinking with the experts.
Mike MacCracken
On 10/25/09 4:49 PM, Johnnie Buttram johnniebutt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Gordon
CC: d-ar
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 this group, send email to
Dear John‹A couple of comments:
1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
by the ocean could be conducted through the
reflectivity.
-David
From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
To: David Keith
Cc: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken
Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
organization.
It's all so blindingly obvious
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Mike MacCracken mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net
To: John Nissen mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that
when injected there is no decay over this period‹so it might as well be a
second of time one takes‹so virtually instantaneous. And I¹ll assume
linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.
So, for methane, humans
First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper makes clear
that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect, so my estimate does
not include that.
On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time is
stretched out, the GWPs for other species drop because
down
into the ice and likely all the way to the base.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 11/18/09 7:12 AM, Raymond Law r2007...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
Why has no one mentioned one possible causes of the melting/sliding of the
major and thick Greenland's ice sheet could be due to the minute
Actually, my calculations some years ago indicated that the ratio for one
year was roughly 1--what gives the high ratio is the long persistence of the
CO2 perturbation.
Mike
On 11/19/09 6:08 PM, Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Dave (cc Ken and list):
Thanks to Dave.
1.
The other problem with 100-year GWPs is that they tend to hide all that can
be done with the short-lived species (black carbon, methane, ozone
precursors), so what we really need to do is to use both 20 and 500+ year
GWPs. Use of 100-year GWPs covers up both of the important tails.
Mike
On
Hi Peter‹Problem with your analysis is that biosphere also gives off
something like 60 GtC as well. Preindustrial with steady CO2, as much was
being taken up and given off. The net uptake, driven by the gradient created
by emissions is now something like 1 GtC/yr and would equilibrate well
before
,
yet that does as much good as reducing fossil fuel emissioins to zero, which
nobody believes is feasible this side of 2100
Cheers
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Mike MacCracken mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net
To: Peter Read mailto:pre...@attglobal.net ; Martin Hoffert
It would be helpful if the IGBP (or some other group like Alan's, which has
more capability to generate such an index better than most) also had a
variability index that included volcanic eruption effects and El Nino/La
Nina effects on at least global average temperature (in that we essentially
Hi David--I have run the MAGICC model of Wigley turning off all emissions
(all GHGs, all aerosols)--so an impossibly aggressive limiting case. The
black carbon and sulfate effects go away virtually immediately, tropospheric
ozone almost as fast, methane over 1-2 decades, and then one is left with
With one exception, I agree with John. The exception is that I think it has
been demonstrated that one can clear an ice fog with seeding, and this has
been done to open airports, etc.--not to generate precipitation (in any
form).
I would add that the water vapor content of air and clouds above
the trend. You can see his material at
http://pulitzercenter.org/openitemdropcol.cfm?id=1583
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 12/20/09 11:34 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
I came across this on Wikipedia. I imagine that it's been uploaded by one of
the originators. Has anyone heard
intensification may be a good trade, it is not likely to be a global cure
for the system (unless one can really pull the GHG concentrations down in
other ways so heat from the ocean would moderate the rate of cooling‹as it
does now during winter).
Mike MacCracken
On 12/28/09 1:34 AM, arcolo
Rather than challenge the honesty of researchers, what would be much more
informative, productive, and appropriate (not to mention respectful) would
be to focus on the assumptions or shortcomings in the calculations and
analyses. In earlier runs with the UKMO model, it took a few thousand years
to
Actually, Alvia, Diana/ETC. was invited, including a follow-up inquiry, and
Diana told me they chose not to be represented. And there are at least
several more than two dozen female scientists/experts coming as
participants. [In any case, it was/is a great movie.]
Mike MacCracken, Chair
While I wholeheartedly agree that methane is a critical issue, it would sure
be nice if they got the facts right.
Consider this paragraph: ³Dr. Shakhova said that undersea methane ordinarily
undergoes oxidation as it rises to the surface, where it is released as
carbon dioxide. But because water
.
Mike MacCracken
On 4/15/10 8:28 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Dear Josh,
You forget one thing. The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over
global climate. And you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic. These
were clear conclusions from the Asilomar
influence due to the dark ash and that it will discolor
the surface for longer than its atmospheric lifetime, but over a lesser
area.
Mike MacCracken
On 4/19/10 5:21 PM, Jim Fleming jflem...@colby.edu wrote:
Thanks for the images. It better not be an analog, however, since
geoengineers never
Forwarded by Mike MacCracken
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrew Revkin
Subject: please pass this around. seeking out-of-box input on the oil well
leak as realtime 'grand engineering challenge'
Please pass this around and/or reply or post a comment. Particularly
interested in folks
Let's keep the BLUEBIRD discussions to the climateintervention blog and not
have the note on the geoengineering blog (or both).
Mike MacCracken
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer
to me a more appropriate approach.
Mike MacCracken
On 9/28/10 9:03 AM, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
Statements that essentially say we will never be able to precisely mimic
through testing the effects of full-blown SRM without doing full-blown SRM are
obviously tautological-- as Ken
Yesterday I got to visit the NOAA lab in Boulder and, among other things,
get to see the simulations being done by their 15 km resolution icosahedral
grid simulation model with a finite volume numerical scheme. Other physics
is from the plug-in packages that are available and used in other GCMs.
Dear Jim--With respect to the set of available global tests, it seems to me
your perspective is a bit narrow. Aside from the fact that the GHG emissions
are a test (though of a different sort in some ways), we have quite a good
test with halocarbon emissions and then their control (this is mainly
I think we need to stop having climate engineering thought of as a Plan B‹it
is not an alternative to emissions control nor to adaptation nor to both of
them together. Without emissions control, neither CDR not SRM is likely to
be able to keep up with emissions and warming influences, and while
Release of the Asilomar Report
The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into
Climate Engineering Techniques
March 22 to 26, 2010
Asilomar Conference Center
Pacific Grove, California
The Scientific Organizing Committee for the Asilomar Conference on Climate
Engineering
Please consider submitting papers to the following symposium:
XXV IUGG General Assembly
Earth on the Edge: Science for a Sustainable Planet
28 June - 7 July 2011
Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre
Melbourne, Australia
Symposium: J-M01: Geoengineering: Can it limit climate change and its
conceived‹it might need to be expanded to
include additional ways to alter the energy balance (vertically mixing the
ocean to potentially moderate tropical being another example‹and there are
other such ideas).
Mike MacCracken
On 1/3/11 12:31 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I agree
From: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization
ANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate):
Dear friends,
A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean
require
much more legal consideration for taking action to keep the climate near to
what it is than to decide not to take and let the climate keep changing
without control. Indeed, starting to try to make sense of all this sounds
appropriate.
Mike MacCracken
On 2/7/11 4:48 PM, Tracy thester0
economy can prosper with low fossil fuel emissions‹until committed to
that, preaching to others is rather hypocritical.
Mike MacCracken
On 3/14/11 3:02 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:
Steve,
The world may well be a better place with an order-or-magnitude fewer people
, and discounted.]
Mike MacCracken
**
On 4/14/11 12:17 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:
Thanks to Oliver Morton for pointing out the attached paper from 1976, which
may be of historical interest to readers of this group.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Ken Caldeira
for keeping this important dialog alive. If the
Arctic ice loss solution is not Bright Water, what is?
Ron
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net
Date: April 16, 2011 8:37:24 PM MDT
To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: Russell Seitz (2
Another approach to the bubble generation effort, and one Russell has
suggested, is to take advantage of existing ships (of order 1000 to 10,000
commercial ships at sea on a given day) and to put bubble generators on
them‹perhaps doing so in a way that reduces their hull friction to make up
for
generations, it is a narrowing path with precarious footing, and if we don't
get started immediately on all steps (some emphasizing implementation, some
emphasizing research), having to run faster in the future seems sure to lead
to some serious slips and bumps in the road--at least.
Mike MacCracken
On 5/11
The Summary for Policymakers of the UNEP/WMO report, which is all that I
think is so far released, is at
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf They basically
discuss something like 16 key emissions reduction targets to focus on first
or most aggressively (or maybe just to show
CO2.
Mike MacCracken
On 6/1/11 4:39 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of
extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is a
load of methane and the odd earthquake.
Seems like a fair
But aren¹t deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject to
rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan?
Mike
On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:
Hi All
I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural gas then they
is advancing the
discussion.
Mike MacCracken
On 6/5/11 11:54 AM, m2redmond m2des...@cablespeed.com wrote:
John and Mike-
Thank you for taking the time to consider how Lair might be applied to
increase global albedo or to possibly mitigate storm severity, as well
as other potential applications
Dear Alvia--Legally, IPCC is organized by the UN, but it really answers to
all of us, at least it needs to if it is to be effective.
Mike
On 6/17/11 10:42 AM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote:
And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather
hypocritically, citing funding
Dear David--I was going to ask a similar question to Bala¹s‹as this has
actually been an ongoing argument in some circles of the energy community,
with a scientific study by a Royal Society lead physicist in their energy
analysis talking about a limit based on extracting a share of the existing
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:22 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala; David Keith; Ken Caldeira
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
Dear David
small compared to the
magnitude of the greenhouse forcing. Asserting that the accelerating melting
back of Arctic sea ice is due to the sunspot cycle is, given that the
relative magnitude of the GHG induced changes, is thus really
unsubstantiated wishful thinking.
Mike MacCracken
PS to Gene
Sorry‹I am not enough of an expert to comment per the request, especially
given complexities of the seasonal cycle, changing inversion strengths and
extents, etc.
Mike MacCracken
On 7/28/11 9:54 PM, nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, if 7% of total RF didn't sound
days
or so.
Mike MacCracken
On 7/30/11 8:59 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:
The numbers show that these C fluxes are in themselves not very important.
The article reports 2.1 million tons of C by the largest tundra wildfire ever
recorded by humans.
Anthropogenic
1 - 100 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
