Interestingly, one could equally well replace SRM with mitigation
in the paragraph below starting The main ethical
Tom.
++
On 2/22/2014 10:57 AM, Bjørnar Egede-Nissen wrote:
Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I
certainly mentioned the
*From:* Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:19 AM
*Subject:* Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA
ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Dear
Folks,
I'd never heard of Vandana Shiva before this. I was intrigued by the
statement in her biosketch that she had published 300 papers in
leading scientific and technical journals.
No matter what else she has done, she certainly does not have much of
a record as a bona fide scientist, at
I've not seen this mentioned anywhere, but CH4 leakage can be identified
with C13. The HCO3-CH4 fractionation is, from memory, about 80 per mil,
so even a small CH4 leakage will affect the carbonate C13 noticeably.
And measuring C13 in dissolved carbonate is trivial. I did some work on
this in
Did IPCC lowball the climate sensitivity?
Short answer ... yes.
Why? ... long story. But not a happy one.
Tom.
++
On 9/18/2013 9:45 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
Another Factor that i've realized of late is the number and size of
wildfires. The fires themselves have a most likely
Ken's idea seems to require going from a current/projected
growth CO2 emissions rate of 0.1-0.2 GtC/yr per year to zero
virtually instantaneously.
I cannot see how this could be possible.
My own combined mitigation/geoengineering scenarios, presented
many times in lectures, assume more gradual
Clive's problem is that he seems to think Haroon and Lee are foxes. And
that anyone associated in any way with organizations like AEI and Exxon
must be a fox. And that anyone who doesn't realize this must be naive.
He's wrong.
Tom.
++
On 6/1/2013 6:05 AM,
Exactly.
People seem to have already forgotten the following ...
Wigley, T.M.L., 2006: A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to
climate stabilization. Science 314, 452–454.
Tom.
On 5/11/2013 7:26 AM, Emily L-B wrote:
I find it hard to read past a sentence
A few years ago Tim Palmer wrote a nice paper showing that the Lorenz
chaos ideas probably do not apply to climate.
Sorry - but I can't recall the reference. Somewhere obscure.
Tom.
+++
On 2/27/2012 10:22 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
Hi Jim—I’ll certainly agree climate can be
going from 300 to 600 ppm is the same as going from 600
to
1200 ppm. Thus, the forcing due to the rising CO2 concentration does
decrease on a per ppm basis.
However, forcing is not sensitivity, and like Tom Wigley, I recall papers
that have done a good bit of testing of plausible changes
Sensitivity is the equilibrium change in global-mean temperature per
unit of radiative forcing. Linearity has been demonstrated up to much
higher forcings than will ever be reached by even the most pessimistic
scenarios.
Early IPCC reports might cover this. I recall work by Kiehl on this back
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 all,
In arguments like those of Clive Hamilton there is the unstated
assumption that it is better to solve a problem at its source than to
offset (cure) the consequences. Personally, I agree with this -- but I
do not think it is **a priori** correct. In fact, in other areas there
are
It's a long time since I did anything in this field, so this is some ad
hoc thinking.
Soil PCO2 is much higher than in the atmosphere. An old paper on this is ...
Drake, J.J. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1975: The effect of climate on the
chemistry of carbonate groundwater. Water Resources Research
Regardless of possible inhibiters, I think that kinetic limitations make
this an unlikely possibility.
See ...
Plummer, L.N. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1976: The dissolution of calcite in
CO2-saturated solutions at 25°C and 1 atmosphere total pressure.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 40, 191–202.
Dear all,
There are some excellent works on climate ethics. Here are two that
I enjoyed ...
The Ethics of Climate Change, James Garvey, Continuum International
Publishing Group, London, 2008.
One World, The Ethics of Globalization, Peter Singer, Yale University
Press, New Haven, 2004 (2nd
John,
You say ...
we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from
as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to runaway
greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change.
This is guesswork, not science.
I do not want to sign this letter.
Tom.
+
I'm not sure who is saying what here -- but Phil's actions are
blameless. One needs to know the full story.
Tom.
+++
David Schnare wrote:
It is called satire Manu, and it is a sad effort to get past what even
Monbiot has to admit, which he does in the opening paragraphs of
The emphasis will be on geo-engineering as opposed to
climactic research and ecology.
CLIMACTIC RESEARCH WOW.
Tom.
Ken Caldeira wrote:
... and I was hoping I could ask you for money !!
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:19 PM, VNBC INC pro...@worldnet.att.net
While Alan Robock is right re the best analog, this does not
mean it is a good analog (because of timescale differences).
This is an unresolved issue -- and some of the studies that have
begun to address this issue are of very limited value because
the GCMs used are very poor at simulating the
The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as
characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming
for 2xCO2 (DT2x).
The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to
this -- although it is of interest in model validation.
This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its
of
others as well. It takes time (and time away from real research) and
is frustrating at times, but simply has to be done. I am very
surprised that there was now a response trying to address the
concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock being in
Australia and being real slayers
You can use MAGICC to see what will happen if emissions of
CO2 (or any gas) are reduced to zero (or any level) instantaneously
(or over any other time period).
Just copy one of the emissions files, rename it, and edit it to
your chosen scenario. MAGICC also allows uncertainties to be
explored.
Isn't the forestry industry already doing this -- except they are
storing the carbon in buildings, paper, etc.
They make money out of this -- so who would pay them to chop down
trees and simply dump them?
Tom.
+++==
Albert Kallio wrote:
In the long run, I think the
John,
Very interesting. If the Londonites think they can withstand a
2 m. sea level rise by 2100, then one can see how they might
have the opinion that geoengineering was (for them) an unnecessary
practice, rather than a dismissive unacceptable practice.
Unfortunately, if sea level did rise by
25 matches
Mail list logo
