Professor David Keith, University of Calgary and Dr Paul Johnston,
Greenpeace discuss geoengineering and whether it can help to delay the
impacts of climate change. Discussion is chaired by Tom Clarke,
Channel 4 News Science Correspondent.
Watch the talks online:
http://www
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bear-status-report/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Dec 8, 10:32 pm, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote:
e. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs. 'nough said.
Mercury and other toxic chemicals are used to make these things. Look
into LED lighting technology.
I ride a motorcycle. It gets very good fuel economy. It also consumed
less
This information is probably useful to casual viewers of this group /
list / what have you. It's very elementary in nature.
I've been thinking about the Arctic Ice. This lead me to look up a
rather important number that I had forgotten (lack of use). That
number is the heat of fusion of water:
RE: CH4
Would it be economically viable to capture the methane and burn it for
energy? Each CH4 - CO2 + 2(H2O).
CO2 is less effective as a GHG as I understand it. Condensation of H2O
in the atmosphere would release heat to space.
I suspect it actually isn't. But I could be missing something.
I had a similar idea:
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/ae7c94be3baddc98
On Dec 17, 8:27 am, Brennan Jorgensen sunhydrosyst...@gmail.com
wrote:
The global audience has witnessed the unfortunate and dire chaos
that has recently transpired in Copenhagen. I started
Lindzen has asserted he does not like being called a skeptic because
he prefers that people call him a denier. Eg: when he was
interviewed on BBC's One Planet October 3 2010. A recording is
available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009yfwl
Here is a transcript of the portion of the
Regarding Robert Socolow's idea that Lindzen's case may need more
adequate refutation:
Richard Kerr published an article in Science in 1989 describing
Lindzen's argument and his place in climate debate entitled:
Greenhouse skeptic out in cold. The article describes Lindzen in
the way some still
/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Afterword.htmlto
his book Ecopragmatism, starting in the fifth paragraph. Brand wrote
this in May 2010. Lovelock appears to be Brand's primary source on climate
science.
I wrote a
piecehttp://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47133/stewart-brand-fearless-follower-lovelock
quickly.
david.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:09 AM, dsw_s [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, my mistake on the distance from shore. But the things still seem
as though they would be a lot easier to get out of the way of a
hurricane than a computing center on land would be.
On Sep 11, 2:31 pm, Alvia
Sorry for the typo in the subject line.
On Sep 21, 12:47 pm, David Schnare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Douglass and Christy have tested the IPCC argument that most of the
observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase
A short while ago this group spent a few days discussing an analysis
of global temperature prediction based on multi-variate regression
analysis versus GCM modelling. The Lean and Rind paper came out last
month and offers a robust example of multi-variate analysis. See:
National study on ocean acidity
The first comprehensive national study of how carbon dioxide emissions
absorbed into the oceans may be altering fisheries, marine mammals,
coral reefs, and other natural resources has been commissioned this
week
by NOAA and the National Science Foundation.
Colin:
I rely on the Huntsville and Hadley data over the NASA data.
Huntsville data is far less adjusted (to be kind). You can look at
it at http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/.
David.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM, COLIN FORREST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear David Schnare
We don't have a tin ear at EPA. It was gilded under the previous
administration.
Cheers,
David
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Alvia Gaskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One month to respond and six months to write the report and the deadline two
weeks before Christmas? I thought only
Alvia:
In dire need. Please send 100 of the rose colored glasses you used when
writing your post. That should last me at least through the first hundred
days of the new administration. After that I will have found a chemical
(probably alcoholic) substitute for the glasses.
Cheers,
David
session on the Geo-engineering case study on* Monday 10*
*November
*when* *evidence will be heard from:
*At 4.15pm:*
*Professor Brian Launder*, University of Manchester;
*Dr Dan Lunt*, University of Bristol; and
*Dr David Santillo*, Greenpeace
*At 5.00pm*
*Professor Stephen Salter
Gosh Alan, are you saying Roy Spencer is not within the entire scientific
community, much less the governments of the world? By most recent
accounts he is in both.
Cheers,
David
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Alan Robock [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
No, I will not want to.
By the way, IPCC
I believe it would be helpful if anyone who agrees with these sentiments,
and has a credible scientific (not law) background, add their names to the
letter. You may surely add my name if you believe me qualified to join you.
(PhD environmental engineering, UNC-CH 1978)
David Schnare
On Thu, Nov
to be very rude to you. He wasn't and it started a very
constructive discussion with Ken, Stephen Salter, and others.
Well done John You decide what to send.
John G
- Original Message -
*From:* John Nissen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* David Schnare [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED
: Friday, November 14, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: FW: REMINDER Climate Change BBL - November 18
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CLIMATE CHANGE SPEAKER SERIES
Tuesday, November 18, 12-1 p.m. 800 Park, Room 132
Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths: Perspectives of a
Lawyer-Scientist
David W
A few of us have been noticing a trend over the past 3 years that has
accelerated in the past four months, and it highlights the moral
hazard of being against geoengineering. In essence, by rejecting
doing full scale research on means to cool the planet and air strip
carbon on a planetary scale,
(Cambie and 18th) in Vancouver on December 6 and 7 at 1 p.m.
Tickets
available from www.festivalcinemas.ca/ or at the door.
Source URL:
http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about-climate-change
--
David W
sources,
and to projections. Note, although they spend a great deal of time
measuring tropospheric temperatures, they measure and report surface
temperatures for both land and ocean in their data sets.
Cheers,
David.
Pubs link: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html
* Christy, J.R
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
Christy co
the models, however, a point Santer makes clear.
David.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
for your discussion.
David.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:
Hi Mike,
Perhaps we should try insurance companies, or even better, reinsurance.
They are interested in avoiding disasters, however they are caused. Does
anybody have good contacts?
I
, please dispose of
our bodies in an honorable manner.
d.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netwrote:
Dear David--
My suggestion was intended to discourage dangerous behavior, which building
in the flood plain is (so David, yes, I do want to alter the behavior
., Hansen).
David.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Lane, Lee O. leol...@crai.com wrote:
Dear David and Mike,
I wonder about part of this discussion. As Nobel laureate Ronald Coase
pointed out long ago, what are referred to as external costs are more
clearly thought of as negative interactions
is a
determinant. This understanding produces another criterion by which to
evaluate those forms of geoengineering that involve carbon sequestration --
a criterion that is already in use with SRM (to a significant degree).
David.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Oliver Wingenter
oliver.wingen...@gmail.com
and Indian oceans.
Flooding concerns remains first and foremost a problem for those of us on
the big pond of the Atlantic.
David.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:
And here is a plea for action, from His Excellence Alik Alik, vice
president of the Federated
these things get talked about, the
more people assume that there is some inherent legitimacy with the
proposals that are being put forward. That simply is not the case,
said David Santillo, a senior scientist with the Greenpeace Research
Laboratories at the University of Exeter (Richard Ingham, AFP/France
, not higher. This
is the power of institutional megaphones.
For what it is worth, geoengineering is now getting help from The
Independent's megaphone. At least the debate is now in the public domain in
a useful way. Still not enough to get big money, but a step in the right
direction.
David
So do I, John. So do I.
David Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:51 AM, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote:
Perfectly put Andrew.
When John Nissen put the same points to Vicky Pope, the Met
offfice's head of Climate Change, after the parlimentary
I think that's right, Tom. My only concern is competition for research
dollars. It would be nice to have some in town here fighting for money in
the same manner that the environmental left and the energy subsidy folks do.
David.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, wig...@ucar.edu wrote:
In my
Andrew:
That is but one theory and reflects a weak correlation. It is not proved
and is not subject to scientific testing. Other phenomena seem much more
likely to have caused the cooling in that period.
David Schnare
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Andrew Lockley
andrew.lock
Dear Colleagues:
We have a benefactor – the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
(NRDC).
David Hawkins, Director of the NRDC Climate Center has now publicly
announced he is not opposed to support for geoengineering. He begins
with not being opposed to this research, “I do not oppose
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
emissions to levels necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.
It is too late to do so, and to think that is a realistic approach is the
moral hazard that will condemn us to catastrophe.
David Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.
Director
Center for Environmental Stewardship
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public
geoengineering and adaptation; honest enough with regard to relative risks
to be signed by the breadth of the geoengineering science community, to
include David Keith, Alan Robock, Lee Lane, John Nissan, Tom Wigley, Alvia
Gaskill, and Ken Caldiera, to name a few. Certain others will not sign
because it would
that geoengineering is an aspect of mitigation. I always thought
it was separate.
What's the consensus?
A
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:08 AM
To: Tom Wigley; Andrew Lockley
Cc: geoengineering; Prof John Shepherd; Tim Lenton; David Lawrence
Subject: [geo] Re: runaway climate change
Dear Tom,
The concept of runaway has certain connotations
only, and give credit for soil sequestration where that's as
good as is available?
David Schnare
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.eduwrote:
By straw we are referring to the stalks of agricultural plants, wheat
stalks and corn stover. The water and nutrients
Andrew
No one cares what the wiki people like.
David Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have an alternative theory as to why we don't see too many instances
of runaway climate change from
/
Dan
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
no gracious way to forgive
that in you and your press release.
David Schnare
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Diana Bronson dianabron...@gmail.comwrote:
ETC Group
News Release
http://www.etcgroup.org
March 10, 2009
Shock and Thaw?
Civil Society says No as geo-engineers mount shock bid to hack
.
3. There are many geoengineering schemes that can avoid the forward
scattering problem, such as various engineered particles in the upper
atmosphere, or so it's by no means clear we would have this problem in any case.
-David
From: geoengineering
on the topic. For the
lower and middle stratosphere this is likely to cheapest and most
controllable option.
-David
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Albert Kallio
Sent: March 23, 2009 8:34 AM
To: agask
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, David Keith wrote:
I think this issue is grossly overhyped
1. It only matters for concentrating solar.
It matters much more for concentrating solar, but proposals for many new
systems emphasize concentrating solar, because it is more efficient
[mailto:euggor...@comcast.net]
Sent: March 24, 2009 10:17 AM
To: David Keith; 'Geoengineering FIPC'
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: a very simply way to lift sulfur
Why isn't the focus on whether the thing works without producing too
much acid rain or snow or other unanticipated negative effects
For those of you wondering where the money for geoengineering is going
to come from, you might be interested in this story about who is going
to be incharge of adaptation research. I have the full report if
someone wants it. You will not find any mention of geoengineering in
this.
EPA Fears
If David Hawkins knows of a way to accomplish geoengineering research absent
third party funding, it might be helpful if he proffers his knowledge. In
the mean time, I suppose he would use OIF (the commercial investment) as an
example. Otherwise, he simple pricks the skin of the geoengineers
David:
Let's quit fencing . Geoengineering research funding is essential if you
believe that a doubling of CO2 will cause catastrophic outcomes. We've been
over this many times before. You refuse to admit the US public, and several
other nations, refuse to give up energy-dependent growth
adjustments'.
Also, IMO, it is a better expression of what we are about.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post
Published online 3 April 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.215
More than a silver lining
Light reflected by clouds can brighten air kilometres away.
Lucas Laursen
There's more to clouds than meets the eye.Punchstock
A study looking at why clouds make the air near them glow more
brightly
them, using the gases driven off by the process for
the fuel needed for the process. It was quite cost-effective and a net
carbon sequestor. While is was enough to power small towns, it isn't really
enough to make a dent in the carbon emissions of the coal-fired power plant
industry.
David Schnare
that.
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom:
Ken eschews discussions on the underlying science of GCMs and other
approaches to understanding the relationship of GHGs and/or the sun to
global temperature on this group. Hence, I won't argue the matter, but
simply
apply to his or her research
efforts. Taking into consideration your self-description and thus your
self-admitted unwillingness to plumb the depths of the science lying beneath
discussions on climate change, I forgive your comment about the necessities
of science.
Cheers,
David.
On Sun, Apr 19
, nations can adapt through population movement and
redevelopment of appropriate land use.
Keep in mind that over 80 percent of all people live near coast lines.
Moving a large proportion of that 80 percent is much more expensive and
destructive than moving a part of the other 20 percent.
David Schnare
and NPP vs a
high-CO2 no-geo baseline.
Of course, the effects would not be uniform.
Yours,
David
-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Robock
Sent: April 21, 2009 6:54 AM
To: Ken Caldeira
Cc: j
I've obtained movie rights. Here's the current The Pinatubo Option
casting line-up:
Tom Hanks playing David Keith
Paul Giamatti playing Ken Caldeira
George Clooney playing Alan Robock
and Darren McGavin (in his persona as Carl Kolchak) playing David Schnare.
It will be easier to get funding
fundamentalism.
The letter refers to the cover story on Canada's leading newsmagazine
which covered geoengineering:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/22/plan-b-for-global-warming/
Yours,
David
From: paul w [mailto:paulw...@yahoo.com]
Sent: April 26
the alarmists find a way to support Plan B Research.
Several such alarmists lurk on this list. Not one has ever put up support
for this kind of research on their websites.
David.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting evolution of POV here from Steffen
global warming. Overall, geoengineering
is intended to be a large scale response to climate change, whether human or
natural.
David Schnare
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ken Caldeira
kcalde...@globalecology.stanford.edu wrote:
It is not a distraction. A good mechanistic understanding
David
While there is legitimate and sensible argument about how much warming
we might get from anthropogenic CO2, I think the overall physics and
atmospheric science linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the
expectation of increased warming is as solid as about anything in
science. The set
David:
I must rely on you for the history of geoengineering, that being one of you
academic interests and areas of expertise. My reference to the beginning of
geoengineering was to the discussions in the Johnson White House related to
what then was thought likely to be global cooling
.
If this science was fundamentally flawed, as it would have to be if CO2
turns out not to be a major forcing, then there would be little basis
to trust the science that underlies the understanding of geoengineering.
Yours,
David
From: kcalde
of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. EPA
is now in the middle of its endangerment finding. It will take a good bit
of time before EPA can establish a NAAQS.
David Schnare
Air Enforcement Division
Office of Civil Enforcement
U.S. EPA
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM, dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com wrote
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
as part of radiation
management. Such credit should not translate into a reduction of to
duty for that country to reduce its emissions.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
and precipitation.
David.
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:
Countries may well try to use such techniques as a may of meeting
obligations, or to justify not cutting GHGs. We should be prepared for the
arguments.
A
2009/5/15 David Schnare dwschn
. That is not to say it couldn't all just
plain disappear, but at this point, it is incorrect to say that there is
simply no multi-year ice. Anyone who looked and didn't find it is simply
looking in the wrong place.
David.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:57 PM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:
It is now
in toward the center of the hurricane, the change in
wind speed would be multiplied according to conservation of momentum
just as the wind speed itself is.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
-dioxide emissions globally are on a runaway pace,
despite rhetoric promising to control them. University of Calgary's David
Keith suggested that we should consider moving toward experiments that would
test ideas on a global scale - and do it sooner rather than later.
It's not clear that during
and listen to you about true faith, or I may not.
It's up to me whether I listen to you, right up until you, as moderator,
banish me, and others, from the group. That too is up to you.
Cheers,
David S.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@stanford.eduwrote:
Alvia
Neat photo's of natural geoengineering. More like this one at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1195215/Stunning-pictures-hole-clouds-astronauts-witness-volcano-eruption-International-Space-Station.html
[image: Bird's Eye View: Safe from harm, NASA scientists look down on the
in the article comes from a 250 page report
posted by the senate minority...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.ViewFileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
Oh for crying out loud. Go look at the most recent Scafetta papers which
use a 30 year time scale for the correlations, and then look at the
backcasted estimates. Then make your wager.
David.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:
One out of every 20 time
the public know (1) the comments were spurious and (2) that
the government didn't ignore non-spurious comments at the same time.
I'm thinking it's about time we reintroduced a course in civics to the
scientific community.
David.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde
- www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09
05:53:00
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
,
You never responded to Margaret's question (or perhaps I missed it).
Tom.
+++
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
EPA has acknowledged the
reach of CWA to ocean acidification, and we hope it will provide states with
new standards based on the best science available, she says.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
is that, as suggested by Crutzen, if geo heats that lower
strat (as many, but not all methods would) it might reduce ozone loss by
reducing the formation of PSC's. To my knowledge, no one has followed up
on this in a serious way.
-David
From
.
There is ample S as H2S in sour gas either produced and re-injected or
made into elemental S using Claus process. (There are many megaton-scale
blocks of elemental S from this process in Alberta where I live,
stunning yellow patches on the landscape.)
-David
From
reminded me that while at Dartmouth in the early '70's she typed part of the
manuscript for LTG for Meadows and his wife. How weird is that?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/holdren-obama-science-opinions-contributors_0203_ronald_bailey.html
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental
hometown, and you could easily
have taken the time to talk to me (as I have offered), but instead it
seems that ETC would prefer to hold strong opinions without actually
engaging substantively with other views.
Is this really how you want to see public debate on important issues?
Yours,
David
.
See, for example, the geo decision analysis preprint, #117 on the geo
section of my site: www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/geo.html
On air capture, I have a perspective that will be out in two weeks in
Science.
Yours,
David
From: geoengineering
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/090901.htm
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
My two bits into this interesting debate:
On the temperature rebound. As Ken says, there is no question that the
temperature rebound is real. Simple physics tells you it should be
there, and this is confirmed by experiments with at least three
different GCMs.
The question is: is it a bug or a
Greg,
Let me push back a bit. I absolutely agree that experiments are crucial and
that by working our way up in experimental scale we will learn more and
therefore reduce risk. While we did not say this as clearly in the RS report as
we might have, and not as clearly as in Novim, I don't
=amelia_g_120x60goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia
Copyright 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html The New York
Times Company http://www.nytco.com/ | Privacy Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html
--
David W. Schnare
Center
panel that
has
a publishing record in the field of biochar.
Hope that helps
Peter
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering
quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send
Neil,
I've made no speculation about you, or about anyone.
Indeed, I'm trying to stop speculation about anyone by anyone.
I don't want to see Tom, a Nobel Laureat, drawn into this quagmire; and I
don't want to see you pushed around.
'nuff said.
David.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM, VNBC
a sledge through water which is
what's needed now.
Now we have to wear immersion suits and swim and we need sledges that
can float. I can foresee needing sledges that are more like canoes
that you also pull over the ice.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
for understanding. You might call it
my personal audacity of hope.
David
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:25 PM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:
Hi Albert,
As you say, one should be careful not to overstate the case.
However, I am always dismayed how easily people are tempted by those
ice has not yet
reached a tipping point, if such exists. We expect Arctic ice to continue to
decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global
temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
to the days
when we discussed the technology and science of GEOENGINEERING.
David Schnare
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
John Nissen,
I might recommend Susan Solomon's recent paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf
A key
-language debunking of this idea in a popular book see:
Keith, David. (2009) Dangerous Abundance. IN: Homer-Dixon, T. Garrison, N.
(Eds.) Carbon Shift: How The Twin Crises Of Oil Depletion And Climate Change
Will Define The Future, Toronto: Random House of Canada, pp26-57.
Available at: http
1 - 100 of 398 matches
Mail list logo
